,7 a *<
P-
4&& "S,
»
PRINCETON, N. J.
Presented by Mr Samuel Agnew of Philadelphia, Pa.
Agnciv Coll. on Baptism, No.
c
~V
■
ijff .
%^*f M^£^
*VA \v-^V> W.\
BAPTISM
MODE AND SUBJECTS
Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2011 with funding from
Princeton Theological Seminary Library
http://www.archive.org/details/baptisminitsmodeOOc
BAPTISM
MODE AND SUBJECTS.
BY
ALEXANDER^ARSON, LL. D.
MINISTER OF THE GOSPEL.
SKETCH OF HIS LIFE,
BY JOHN YOUNG.
REVISED BY THE COMMITTEE OF PUBLICATION.
FIRST AMERICAN EDITION.
PHILADELPHIA:
AMERICAN BAPTIST PUBLICATION SOCIETY.
1S45.
Entered according to the Act of Congress, in the year 1844, by John B. Trevor,
Treasurer of the American Baptist Publication Society, in the Clerk's Office of the
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Stereotyped by L. Johnson.
Printed by King & Baird.
WC. APR 1 88 j
PREFACE
Nothing can be farther from the intention of the following Work,
than to widen the breach among Christians of different denomi-
nations, or to minister to the increase of a sectarian spirit. There
are two extremes which I wish to avoid — on the one hand, a spirit
of liberalism that supposes the Christian his own master, and hesi-
tates not to sacrifice the commandments of God to the courtesies
of religious intercourse — on the other, that sort of dogmatism that
finds all excellence in its own party, and is reluctant to acknow-
ledge the people of the Lord in any denomination but its own.
Liberality of sentiment is not a phrase which I admit into my
religious vocabulary ; for though I love and acknowledge all who
love the Lord Jesus, I hold myself as much under the law of God
in embracing all the children of God, as in forming the articles of
my creed. My recognition of all Christians I ground on the
authority of Jesus. To set at nought the weakest of Christ's little
ones, I call not illiberal, but unchristian. To disown those whom
Christ acknowledges, is antichristian disobedience to Christ. But
while I gladly admit, that many who differ from me with respect
to baptism, are among the excellent of the earth, I cannot, out of
compliment to them, abstain from vindicating this ordinance of
Christ. This would show greater deference to man than to God.
" Every plant," says Jesus, " that my heavenly Father hath not
planted, must be plucked up." To permit the traditions of men
to pass for the ordinances of God, is injurious to the edification of
Christians, and disrespectful to Christ.
VI PREFACE
Some are diverted from the examination of this subject, by con-
sidering it as a thing of small moment, and that time is better
spent in schemes of general usefulness. That baptism is a thing
of small moment, is an opinion that is not likely to have been
suggested by the accounts of it in the Scriptures. It is an ordi-
nance that strikingly represents the truth that saves the soul ; and
is peremptorily enjoined on all who believe. But were it the very
least of all the commandments of Jesus, it demands attention and
obedience at the hazard of life itself. Nothing that Christ has
appointed, can be innocently neglected. To suppose that schemes
of general usefulness ought to take the place of the commandments
of God, is a direct affront to the wisdom and power of Jehovah.
Saul alleged that he had substantially obeyed the word of the
Lord, though he spared Agag, the king. of Amalek, and a part of
the spoil for a burnt-offering; but the answer of the prophet
ought for ever to deter from the exercise of a discretionary power,
with respect to the commandments of God : " Hath the Lord as
great delight in burnt-offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the
voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice ; and
to hearken, than the fat of rams. For rebellion is as the sin of
witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry : Because
thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, he hath also rejected thee
from being king."
Many seem alarmed at controversy, and shrink from it as
opposed to the spirit of the Gospel. It is, no doubt, a grievous
thing, that controversy should be necessary ; but as long as error
exists, it is impossible to avoid controversy, except we value peace
more than truth. Can we forget that the whole life of Christ and
his apostles was a scene of never-ending controversy ? He who
was love itself, contended constantly against the errors of his
time. There is not a truth or an ordinance of the Gospel that
Christians can hold without opposition. From the manner of
revelation, it seems evidently the design of God to manifest what
is in man ; and to leave an opening to discover the opposition to
his wisdom in the minds even of his own people, as far as it exists.
The arguments that are opposed to the truth on any subject of
revelation, have their effect on the mind, not from their intrinsic
PREFACE. \'ii
weight, but from their adaptation to the corruptions of the heart.
We yield to them, because what they are designed to establish is
more agreeable than that to which they are opposed. Of this we
have a remarkable example in the disobedient prophet at Bethel.
When he was sent to denounce the judgments of the Lord against
Jeroboam's altar, he was forbidden to eat or drink in the place.
Yet, after refusing the hospitality of the king, he suffered himself
to be deceived by another prophet. " Come home with me, and
eat bread. And he said, I may not return with thee, nor go in
with thee ; neither will I eat bread nor drink water with thee in
this place. For it was said to me by the word of the Lord, Thou
shalt not eat bread, nor drink water there, nor turn again to go
by the way that thou earnest. He said unto him, I am a prophet
also, as thou art, and an angel spake unto me by the word of the
Lord, saying, Bring him back with thee into thine house, that he
may eat bread and drink water. But he lied unto him. So he
went back with him, and did eat bread in his house, and drink
water." Many things might be plausibly said to justify or excuse
this unhappy man. But the Lord did not excuse him. " Thus
saith the Lord, Forasmuch as thou hast disobeyed the mouth of the
Lord, and hast not kept the commandment which the Lord thy
God commanded thee, but earnest back, and hast eaten bread, and
drunk water, in the place of the which the Lord did say to thee,
Eat no bread, and drink no water ; thy carcase shall not come
unto the sepulchre of thy fathers." It behoves those who change
the mode and the subjects of baptism, to consider this awful
example. If Christ has commanded his disciples to be baptized
on their belief of the truth, who can change it into the baptism of
infants ? If he has commanded them to be immersed, who can
change it into pouring or sprinkling ?
In stating the evidence on my own side, and in refuting the
arguments of my opponents, I have from first to last proceeded as
if I were on oath. I have never allowed myself to use artifice, or
to affect to despise an argument which I found myself unable to
answer. This is a resource in many controversialists, that is both
disingenuous and mean. I have not used one argument to con-
vince others, that has not with myself all the weight which I wish
V1U PREFACE.
it to have with them. I am not conscious of forcing one line in
the word of God. I have no temporal interest to serve, by estab-
lishing my views of baptism. Interest and reputation are both on
the other side.
False first principles, and false canons of interpretation, lie at
the bottom of most false reasoning and false criticism. This is
remarkably verified in the reasonings and criticisms of my oppo-
nents, which I have examined. The reader will find innumerable
instances in which I substantiate this charge. Criticism can never
be a science until it founds on canons that are self-evident. When
controversy is conducted on both sides in this way, truth will soon
be established. My dissertation on the import of the word baptizo,
I submit with confidence to the judgment of the really learned.
If I have not settled that controversy, there is not truth in axioms.
I earnestly entreat my brethren to consider the subject with
patience and impartiality. Though it may injure the temporal
interest of many of them, yet there is a hundred-fold advantage
in following the Lord. It would give me the greatest pleasure in
being the means of leading others to correct views on this subject.
But I know human nature too well to be sanguine. Something
more than the strength of argument is necessary to bring even
Christians to understand the will of their Lord. However, should
I not make a single convert, I shall not be disappointed. My
first desire is to approve myself to my Lord. If I please him, I
hope I shall be enabled to bear not only the enmity of the world,
but the disapprobation of Christian brethren. I expect my reward
at his appearing. The motto I wish to be engraven on my heart
is " Occupy till I come."
INTRODUCTION.
As in the baptismal controversy I have taken the side opposed
to interest and popularity, I could have no temptation to become
a Baptist. Knowing the strength of prejudice on the other side,
and the odium attached to truth on this question, I have, from
the commencement of the examination of the subject, acted with
the utmost caution and deliberation. I have no pleasure in reproach
or persecution. To me, it was a very serious sacrifice to change my
views on this question. All the other points in which I differ from
the dominant sects of this country, do not give so much offence
to the world, as does the difference on the subject of baptism. I
anticipated the end, I counted the cost, and I am daily paying the
instalments. In the present work, I have, at great length, laid the
evidence before my readers, both in proof and refutation. In both
I have acted with integrity and candour. I have, in every line,
written as in the sight of God, and with the full impression that I
shall give account. It is no light matter to attempt to influence
the views and conduct of the Lord's people as to any part of his
will. Nothing I wish more to avoid than, in the day of God, to
be fomid to have led his people away from his truth and ordinances.
I have not used an argument winch has not the weight on my own
mind, which I wish it to have on my reader's. I have not over-
looked a single objection from a conviction of its difficulty, nor
given it an evasive or sophistical answer. If truth is my client, I
b ix
X INTRODUCTION.
shall not affront her by an unworthy defence. I despise sophistry
on all subjects : when employed on the work of God I loathe and
abhor it. I am not indifferent to the approbation of honest and
sound-minded men ; to these I confidently appeal. But my ambi-
tion is, to be recognised by Jesus as the defender of his truth,
"when he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be
admired in all them that believe."
I have thought it necessary to premise some observations on the
nature of the burden of proof. If they are sound they will be of
immense importance on any subject. It is a thing on which con-
troversialists appear to be universally mistaken. As it is essential
to the manifestation of truth, it is not possible that it can be either
optional or conventional.
The nature of the testimony of the Fathers, with respect to the
meaning of the word which designates the ordinance, I have
pointed out. It is only as they testify as to the meaning of the
word in the time of the Apostles, that they can be called in as
witnesses. The word might have received any number of
secondary meanings after this period without affecting the ques-
tion at issue. To speak of meaning conferred by progress of ideas
after the institution of the ordinance, as being applicable for proof
on this subject, is at the utmost verge of absurdity.
In order to make the work more agreeable and useful to the
English reader, I have not printed a single Greek word: and
there is hardly a criticism which men of a sound mind without
learning may not understand and estimate. My canons and my
criticisms generally apply to all languages, and require nothing
in the reader but patience and a sound judgment. The only thing
which I regret in following this plan is, that it prevents me from
using much valuable evidence supplied to me by my friends from
the testimony of modern Greek, &c.
To a highly respectable individual who sent me his views against
the perpetuity of Baptism, I reply, that I had originally intended
to treat on this point, but, on consideration, I found that it did
not lie before me, and would require to be treated in a separate
work.
I give a similar answer to many other friends who have sug-
INTRODUCTION. XI
gested points which they wished to be handled. I wish to
avoid anything but what is essential to my main object. A writer
who attempts to do every thing at once, will do nothing well.
Some of my antagonists speak as if I were a most bigoted and
intolerant Baptist. In replying to them I have taken no notice of
this. I despise misrepresentation ; in the end it can do no injury.
So far from fostering a sectarian spirit, no one can more thoroughly
abhor it than I do. It mars the progress of the truth, which with
every Christian ought to be paramount to all things; it dis-
honours Christ and his people ; and it does injury even to the
cause which it is designed to favour. While I defend what I
consider truth, with respect to this ordinance, I cordially embrace
every lover of the Lord Jesus, and concede to him the same
privilege that I take to myself. In my mind it is a heinous sin
to despise the very weakest of all the children of God; and if ever
Christian union was important, it is so in the present time, when
all the machinations of the Prince of darkness are employed in
combination to destroy the truth. I am as warm an advocate for
Christian union as I am for Baptism. I am fully convinced that,
if Christian union were fully understood and acted on by Chris-
tians in general, right views of Baptism would soon prevail.
Among all the causes that prevent Christians from impartial and
earnest inquiry, a sectarian spirit is the chief: it shuts them out
from confidential intercourse with one another, and disinclines
them to think of the subject.
Many seem to think that zeal for any of the things in which
Christians differ, is inconsistent with zeal for Christian union.
Accordingly, while some, on the one hand, from zeal for their
peculiarities, are unfriendly to Christian union, others, on the other
hand, from zeal for Christian union, think themselves bound to
undervalue and neglect the things in which Christians differ.
Nothing can be more unfounded and dishonourable to truth than
this. On the contrary, the greatest zeal for a particular opinion is
quite consistent with the utmost regard for Christian union. Chris-
tian union is not founded on perfect agreement with respect to all
the will of God, but agreement about the truth that unites them
all in one body in Christ. No difference consistent with this, can
Xll INTRODUCTION.
really separate them. I press my views on my brethren : if I
succeed, I do them service ; if I fail, I discharge my duty, but have
no cause of complaint against them. They are not accountable to
me, and it is the essence of popery to assume any authority but
that of argument. In the field of battle, I strike in earnest, but
even then it is the arguments, or the talents, or the harmony of
my opponent, at which I aim. I never judge the heart ! I am
united in heart with all who are united to Christ.
CONTENTS.
- ^^^^
CHAPTER I.
THE BURDEN OF PROOF.
Importance of ascertaining on which side the necessity of proof lies : Archbishop
Whately's opinion on this subject: use of the term Presumption, 1. — Caution
necessary in using lexicons : The affirmer bound to advance proof, 2. — Lord
Chancellor King's opinion as to the burden of proof, 4. — Archbishop Whately's
opinion of Presumption, and his illustrations from procedures at law, &c, 5. —
Pernicious principle of relieving the prevailing faith from the burden of proof, 8.
— Authors of the Reformation, 11. — Episcopacy: Infant baptism, 12 — Arch-
bishop Whately's paradox, 15. — Change in itself neither good nor evil, 16.
CHAPTER II.
THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
MEANING OF THE WORD BAPTO :— DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BAPTO AND B.iPTIZO.
Section I. — The word bapto, from which is formed baptizo, signifies primarily to
dip ; and as a secondary meaning, derived from the primary, it denotes to dye.
Difference between bapto and baptizo, 18. — Dr. Gale's opinion on this subject:
Bapto never used to denote the ordinance : Baptizo never signifies to dye, 19. —
The force of the termination zo: Meaning of baptizo in classical authors, 20. —
Baptizo applied to an object lying under water, 21 — Interpretation of baptizo
by Mr. Robinson, of Cambridge, 22. — Professor Porson's interpretation of the
word, 23. — Proper method of ascertaining the meaning of a word, 23.
Section IL — Examples from Greek authors to show that the word bapto signifies
mode, and that the idea of water is not in the word at all.
Examples from Theocritus, 24. — Aristotle, Moschus, ^Elian, 25. — Jamblichus,
Suidas, 26. — Aristophanes, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Matt. xxvi. 23. —
Lycophron, Sophocles, 27.
Section III. — Examples to illustrate the mode :
From Theocritus, 27.— Euripides, Aristophanes, Harpocratian, Aristotle, 28.—
Herodotus, Aratus, Aristotle, Homer, the book of Ecclesiasticus, 29.— Ana-
creon, Herodotus, from the Old and New Testament, 30—33.
Section IV. — Examples in which bapto has been supposed to signify to wash ; but
in all of which it retains its own peculiar meaning.
Examples from Aristophanes, 33.— Herodotus, Hymns of Callimachus, 34.—
Dan. iv. 30, and vi. 21.— Dr. Gale's remarks on this passage, 35.— Dr. Cox's
replv to Mr. E win g respecting this passage, 36.— Quotations from Virgil, 38, 39.
xiii
XIV CONTENTS.
Section- V. — Examples from Hippocrates to show that bapto means to dip.- in one
case only signifying to dye, 39.
Odd view of a passage in Hippocrates given in the Appendix to E wing's Essay
on Baptism, 40.
Section VI. — Examples where bapto means to dye.
From JEhan, Nicolas of Damascus, ^Esehylus, 45 — Dr. Gale's observations on
this subject, 46. — The occurrence of the word in the Battle of the Frogs and
Mice, 48.
Section VII. — The derivatives of bapto, both in the primary and secondary mean-
ing, prove that it denotes immersion.
Examples from Sophocles, Lucian, Pindar, 49. The compounds of bapto and
the proposition with which it is construed, 50. — Examples from Hippocrates,
Dioscorides, 51.
Section VIII. — Instances in which bapto is used figuratively.
Examples from Aristophanes, 51. — Quotation from Marcus Antoninus Pius, 52.
Section EX. — That bapto signifies to dip, is strongly confirmed by the circum-
stance, that dyeing, which it also imports, was usually performed among the
Greeks and Romans by immersion.
Quotations from Seneca, Plato, 53. — Pliny, Septuagint, Hebrew and Chaldee
versions : Remarks on tingo in the Latin, 54.
Section X. — Examples of the occurrence of baptizo, to show that the word always
signifies to dip ; never expressing anything but mode.
The authority of Lexicons, 56. — Important canon: Examples of baptizo from
Polybius, 57. — Strabo, Plutarch, Diodorus Siculus, Lucian, Porphyry, 58. —
Homer, Heraclides Ponticus, Themistius, Septuagint, 59. — Remarks on Naa-
man's dipping in the Jordan, 60. — Vossius and Turretine on a passage in
Plutarch, 61. — Remarks of Mr. Ewing's learned friend: Quotations from
iEsop, Josephus, 62. — Hippocrates, 64.— Polybius, Dio, Porphyry, Diodorus
Siculus, 65.
Section XL — Baptizo never signifies to wash, except by dipping ; and is never
used to denote purification by sprinkling.
Quotations from Ecclesiasticus, 66. — Luke xi. 38, Mark vii. 4, p. 67. — Dr. Camp-
bell's opinion with regard to nipto and baptizo, 68. — Mr. Ewing's translation
of Mark vii. 4, p. 69. — Washing of beds, 71. — Important canon, 72. — Differ-
ence of opinion between Dr. Campbell and Mr. Ewing respecting Mark vii.
4, p. 74. — Abyssinian custom, 76. — Judith xii. 7, p. 77.
Section XII The determination of the literal meaning of baptizo from its figvr
rative applications.
Baptizo never alludes to pouring, 78 — Baptizo applied in its figurative sense to
drunkenness, sleep, &c, 80. — To debt, 83. — Quotations from Josephus, &c.
84.— The figurative baptism of our Lord, Matt. xx. 22. — The baptism of the
Spirit, 87.
Section XIII. — Examination of Mr. Ewing's System.
Mr. Ewing derives the English word pop from the Greek bapto.- The meaning
CONTENTS. XV
of a word to be determined by its use in the language, and not by its origin,
87 — 89. — Mr. Ewing's theory assigns to bapto, as a primary meaning, a sig-
nification which it in no case possesses : Canon of criticism, 89. — A word
that applies to two modes can designate neither, 90. — The construction of
the words in connexion with bapto opposed to Mr. E.'s theory, 94. — Mr. Ew-
ing's mistake with regard to the effect prepositions have in composition
with verbs, 96. — Mr. E.'s rules of interpretation unreasonable, 99.
Section XrV. — The baptism of the Spirit.
The baptism of the Spirit a figurative expression, having a reference to immer-
sion : The pouring out of the Spirit : The literal sense of a word a guide to
its figurative applications, 104. — Pouring out of the Spirit not literal, 105. —
Things that are different confounded, 108. — The falling of the Spirit on the
disciples in the house of Cornelius, 113 — Authority of Milton, 114. — Mr.
Ewing's explanation of the figurative baptism that was fulfilled in the suffer-
ings of Christ, 115. — Passage through the Red Sea figuratively called a bap-
tism, 119. — Dr. Wardlaw's remarks upon this passage, 120.
Section XV. — The syntax of Baptizo, and the circumstances in which the
word is found.
Matt. iii. 11 examined: Meaning of the Greek preposition en, 121. — John bap-
tizing in the Jordan, 124. — Going down into and coming up out of the water,
126. — Rebekah going down to the well, 127. — Baptism of the Eunuch, 128. —
Mr. Ewing's explanation of Acts viii. 38, &c, 129. — Meaning of eis and ek,
131. — Dr. Wardlaw's remarks on en, eis, and ek, 132. — Appeal to common
sense, 133. — Examination of the examples in Mr. Ewing's Appendix of ek
and apo, 134. — Canon of criticism, 141. — John baptizing in Enon, 141.
Section XVT. — Evidence from the Scripture explanations of the ordinance.
Rom. vi. 3 : — Mr. Ewing's explanation of this passage, 142 — 144. — Mr. Ewing's
assertion that preparatory rites are called " burial," 148. — Quotations from
Josephus, Moschus, Homer, and Herodotus on the subject, 149. — Meaning
of sumphutoi, planted together, 154. — Dr. Wardlaw's explanation of Rom. vi.
3, contradictory to Mr. Ewing's, 155. — The Apostle's figure, 158. — 1 Cor. xv.
29, favourable to the Baptists, 163. — Born of water and the Spirit, 164.
Section XVII. — Strictures on Mr. Ewing's Miscellaneous Remarks on the Hypo-
thesis of Immersion.
Immersion not indecent or indelicate, 165 — Argument from the scarcity of
water at Jerusalem answered, 166 — Baptism of Paul and of the Philippian
jailer, 168.
CHAPTER III.
THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM.
Section I. — The subjects of Baptism obvious from the apostolical commission
Matt, xxviii. 19, p. 169.
XVI CONTENTS.
Believers oniy to be baptized : Infants necessarily excluded by the terms of the
commission: Dr. Wardlaw's reply to this, 170 — 173. — Remarks on Mark
xvi. 16. — That believers only are to be baptized clear from that into which
they are said to be baptized, 173. — Clear also from the command to teach the
baptized, 174 The baptism of John perfectly coincident with the apostolic
commission as to mode and subjects, 175. — Mr. E wing's observation on John's
baptism, 178. — Peter's preaching baptism on the day of Pentecost, 179. —
The baptism of Simon proceeded on the supposition of his faith, 180 The
baptism of households, 181. — Baptism of Lydia's household, 183. — Baptism
alleged to take the place of circumcision, 185. — Children addressed in the
apostolic epistles, 187. — Dr. Wardlaw's statement that Baptists never bap-
tize households, 189. — Reply to Mr. Ewing on the baptism of households*
190. — The house of Stephanas, 193. — Reply to Mr. Ewing's question why
Baptists do not practise family baptism, 1 94. — Mr. Ewing's appeal to the
feelings, 195. — " Salvation is come to this house" 196. — Little children brought
to Jesus, 198. — Mr. Hallet's remarks on "Of such is the kingdom of heaven,"
198. — "The promise is unto you and your children," 203. — The promise of
the Spirit, 205 1 Cor. vii. 12—14, p. 207.
Section II. — Evidence as to the subjects derived from allusions to baptism, 211.
Section- ni. — Abrahamic covenant, 214.
Infants not saved by the new covenant, 215. — Infants not saved by the covenant
with Abraham, 217. — The promises of the covenant of Abraham not exactly
the same to his seed as to himself, 220. — Circumcision not intended to seal
anything personally to those who received it, 225. — To all infants circumci-
sion equally unsuitable as a seal, 227.— Baptism not come in the room of
circumcision, 228. — The right of children to baptism founded on the faith of
their parents, erroneous, 230. — Argument for circumcision being inapplica-
ble to females, 231. — Reply to the assertion that there is no direct evidence
that women partook of the Lord's supper, 231. — All the ordinances of the Jew-
ish church abolished, 233. — Baptism not the seal of the new covenant, 234.
CHAPTER IV.
REPLY TO MR. BICKERSTETH.
Section I. — False inference from the order in which Dr. Carson has treated of
the mode and subjects of baptism, 238.
Section II. — Mr. B. denies that the word baptizo means to dip only, 242.
Section III. — The creed of the Churchman with respect to baptism, 244.
Section IV. — Mr. B.'s remarks fan Dr. Carson's opinion of the meaning of bapto
and baptizo, 249.
Section V. — Remarks on Dr. Carson's views with respect to the subjects of bap-
tism, 253.— The meaning of the term disciple, 257< — Our Lord's commission
to teach (disciple) all nations, 259.
CONTENTS. XV11
CHAPTER V.
REPLY TO DR. HENDERSON.
Section I. — Dr. Henderson's false principles of interpretation, 262.
Section tt— Mr. Ewing's " admirable classification !" of the meanings of baptizo,
266.
Section m.— The Syric translation, 276.
CHAPTER VI.
REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE.
Section I. — Examination of the statement that baptizo signifies to purify, and that
the word has other meanings besides immerse, 280.
Section II. — The context of the word baptizo in the New Testament, 290. — Mul-
titude of meanings given by the writer to bapto and baptizo, 295. — The force
of the prepositions used with baptizo, 297.
Section III. — Baptizo alleged to have a sacred meaning, 304. — Important admis-
sion, 305.
Section IV. — Baptizo applied to the minds of men : their spirits are said to be
baptized, 309.
Section V. — The writer's exposition of the meaning of baptizo in the passages
in which it occurs, 313.
Section VI. — The writer's interpretation of the word in the Septuagint, 317. —
Remarks on Matt. vii. 3, &c., 321. — Baptism at the Red Sea, 328. — John's
Baptism, 331. — Baptism with the Holy Spirit and with fire, 333. — Difficulty
started as to the number baptized by John, 335.
Section VII. — Prepositions construed with the verb, 337. — The meaning of en
and apo, with examples, 337. — Ek, 340. — Argument from John iii. 23, 344. —
Argument from baptism taking place at rivers, 346.
Section VIII. — Difference alleged between baptisma and baptismos, 346.— Bap-
tism and repentance alleged to coincide, 348.
Section LX. — The writer's explanation of the passages which refer to baptism,
349. — Difficulty started as to the baptism of the three thousand, 354.
CHAPTER VII.
REPLY TO DR. MILLER.
Section I. — Dr. M.'s assertion that baptizo does not necessarily signify immerse, 364-
Section II — Dr. M.'s substitution of his solemn assertions for proof, 365. — The
washings of the scribes and Pharisees, 366. — Baptism of the Holy Ghost :
The Israelites at the Red Sea, 366. — Judas dipping his hand into the dish :
dipping of couches, &c, 367.
c
XV111 CONTENTS.
Section III. — Alleged facility in acommodating their belief to their wishes on the
part of the Baptists, 371.
Section IV.— John's baptism, 372.
Section "V. — The baptism of Christ, 373.
Section VI.— The baptism of Paul, 373.
Section VII.— The baptism of the eunuch, 375.
Section VIII. — The baptism of Cornelius, 375.
Section EX. — The baptism of the jailer, 376.
Section X. — Dr. M.'s complaint of the Baptists making immersion essential to
the ordinance, 378.
Section XI. — The clearest proof of the original mode would not change the
practice of some psedo-baptists, 379.
Sbction XII. — Dr. M.'s assertion that it was the practice to baptize naked, 380.
Section XIII Rom.vi. 1, p. 383.
Section XIV. — Dr. M.'s second allusion to the Red Sea, 387.
Section XV Dr. M. dismisses the argument from 1 Pet. iii. 20, 21, on the
ground that there was no immersion of Noah and his family, 388.
Section XVI.— Dr. M.'s opinion, that to lay stress on rites is superstitious and
dangerous, 389.
Section XVII. — Conduct of Peter on Christ's washing his disciples' feet, 391.
Section XVIII. — Dr. M.'s assertion that the tendency of the Baptists insisting on
immersion is to superstition and abuse, 391.
Section XIX. — Dr. M.'s assertion that it is plain from the history of the ordi-
nance, that immersion is not essential to valid baptism, 392.
CHAPTER VIII.
REPLY TO MR. HALL.
Section I. — Mr. H.'s opinion that the mode is a matter of indifference, 395.
Section n. — Observations on the laws of interpretation, 395.
Section III.— Mr. H.'s assertion that the Scriptures represent the baptism of
the Spirit under the mode of pouring, &c, 401.
Section IV. — Mr. H. disputes Dr. Carson's interpretation of some examples
from the classics, 403.
Section V. — Mr. H. proposes three inquiries, 404. — Divers baptisms, — 404. —
Baptism after market, 406.
Section VI.— Mr. H. thinks it strange that Baptists dwell so particularly on
" much water" at Enon, while they find enough in Jerusalem to baptize
three thousand converts in a part of one day, 408.
Section VII. — Our Lord's baptism, 409.
Section VIII.— The absurdity of Mr. H.'s opinion that Jesus was baptized as a
priest, 410.
Section IX.— Difficulty started by Mr. H. in connexion with the baptism of the
Eunuch, 410.
CONTENTS. XIX
Section- X. — Rom. vi. 1, and Col. ii. 12, p. 411. — Baptism of the three thousand,
414. — Baptism of the jailer, 414. — Baptism of Paul, 415 — Of Cornelius, 416,
Immersion alleged not to be essential to valid baptism, 416.
Section XI. — Mr. Hall's argument from Justin Martyr, 417.
Section XII.— Mr. H. demands proof that the early Christians considered immer-
sion essential to baptism, 417.
Section XIII. — Mr. H.'s assertion that the thing and not the mode is commanded,
418.
CHAPTER IX.
REPLY TO MR. MUNRO.
Section I. — Mr. M.'s remarks on Dr. Carson's interpretation of Heb. ix. 10, p. 421.
Section H Mr. M.'s exploits at the Red Sea— his reference to Exod. xxiv. 3—8,
&c, 421.— Pouring out of the Spirit, 422.— On Cohii. 12, p. 423.— Baptism
at Enon, 424. — Baptism of the Eunuch, 425.
CHAPTER X.
REPLY TO MR. THORN.
Character of Mr. T.'s work. — Splendid criticisms ! 427.
CHAPTER XI.
FIRST REPLY TO PRESIDENT BEECHER.
Section I. — President Beecher attempts to prove that the word baptismos does
not refer at all to mode, but signifies purification in general : Argument from
John iii. 25, &c, 429.
Section II.— Argument from Malachi, 434. — Joannes o Baptistes alleged to signify
John the Purifier, 435.
Section ni. — The contrast made by John between his own baptism and that of
Christ, alleged by President B. to establish his doctrine that baptismos means
purification, 436.
Section IV. — Argument from 1 Cor. xii. 13, p. 437. — Mr. B.'s argument from the
relation which the words baptize and purify have to forgiveness of sins, 438.
— Argument from Josephus, 440.
Section V — Argument from Heb. ix. 10, p. 442.
Section- VI. — Argument from Tobit vi. 2, p. 444. — Mr. B.'s remarks on the word
kluzo, 445. — Immersion of vessels, 446.
Section VII — Mr. B. presents the usual objection from Mark vii. 4, and Luke
xi. 38, p. 448. — Appeal to Mr. Bloomfield, 449. — Rosenmiiller on these pas-
sages, 450. — Possible sense of a word, 451.
Section VIII. — Argument from Ecclesiasticus, 454. — The case of Judith, 456.
XX CONTENTS.
Section IX. — President B.'s explanation of Acts xxii. 16, p. 461 — President B.'s
views on 1 Pet. iii. 21, p. 462. — Reference to Josephus, 463. — False axiom of
interpretation, 464. — Argument from the usage of the writers of Alexandrine
Greek, 465.
Section X Appeal to the Fathers to prove that purify is the meaning of baptizo,
466. — Justin Martyr's view of John iii. 3, p. 469 — The ground on which the
Fathers considered baptism to be the means of regeneration, 469. — Argument
from Chrysostom, 471. — Argument derived from Alexandrine Greek, 473.
Section XI. — Facts which disprove Mr. Beecher's theory, 475. — Passages of
Scripture which explain baptism as immersion, 475. — Passages which imply
that immersion was the mode of baptism, 476. — Passages which allude to
baptism as immersion, 476.
Section XII. — Dissertation on louo. — Dr. Campbell's distinction between louo and
nipto, 480. — Examples from Hesiod, 481. — From Herodotus, Heraclides,
Ctesias, Hippocrates, 482. — Homer, 483 Simonides, ^Elian, Nicolas of
Damascus, Arrian, 485. — Josephus, Justin Martyr, Eusebius, Lucian, 486.
CHAPTER XII.
SECOND REPLY TO PRESIDENT BEECHER.
President B. complains of the severity of Dr. Carson's attack on his theory with
respect to the meaning of baptizo : Grounds on which the charge of want of
discrimination on the part of President B. is founded, 487. — President B. makes
baptismos and katharismos synonymous, 487. — The testimony of the Fathers,
488. — The three immersions practised by the ancients in the performance of
the rite, 491. — Canon as to impossibility, 492. — Meaning of the preposition
eh, 493. — Meaning of louo, 493. — Meaning of klizo, 494 — President B.'s com-
plaint with regard to the manifestation of a bad spirit by Dr. Carson, 494. —
Six special advantages brought forward by President B. as recommendations
of the Pzedobaptists' mode of attending to the ordinance, 495.
MEMOIR
OF
ALEXANDER CARSON, LL. D.
MINISTER OF THE GOSPEL, IN TUBBERMORE, IRELAND.
BY
JOHN YOUNG,
BAPTIST MINISTER, OF TRENTON, NEW JERSEY.
MEMOIR
ALEXANDER CARSON, LL. D.
Those who undertake to record the lives of literary men, often com-
plain of a want of stirring incidents, such as enliven the histories of war-
riors and statesmen. The man of letters is compelled, by the very nature
of his pursuits, to spend much time in retirement, and in labours which,
however useful, possess but little interest in narration.
The beloved individual, of whom we are now to give an account, was
peculiarly fond of seclusion, and passed nearly all his time in the bosom
of his own flock, without ever attemping to urge his way into the bustle of
the great world. Yet his life is by no means destitute of important events,
which, if properly presented, cannot fail to interest at least the christian
reader. He was a fearless warrior, who fought, not for an earthly, but a
heavenly crown ; and whose victories were gained, not by destroying, but
in labouring to save his fellow men. He was a profound and skilful
statesman, expounding the laws, not of fleeting human governments, but
of that divine and spiritual kingdom, which is the last and noblest work
of the Creator. Shall bloody conquerors have their annalists, while the
soldiers of Immanuel are forgotten ? No ! never. The names and me-
morials of God's people must live, when earth's empires have perished,
and oblivion shall cover all their glories.
*In attempting the preparation of the following article, the writer feels that an apo-
logy is due from him to the public. The lamented death of Dr. Carson, occuring just as
his work on Baptism was about to be republished in this country, seemed to require that
a brief sketch of his life should accompany it ; in order that American readers might
know something of the character of a man whose productions they so highly prize. At
the request of the Publication Society, the writer, with much diffidence, consented to
perform this service. He had no materials for the purpose on hand ; and time could
not be afforded him to procure them from Ireland. He has described the events from
recollection, and the testimony of others. He has aimed to give a faithful picture. If
inaccuracies should be found, he hopes they will be pardoned, as incidental to the cir-
cumstances in which he was placed.
xxiii
XXIV MEMOIR OF DR. CARSON.
The scene of Dr. Carson's labours, for a period of nearly fifty years,
was Tubbermore, a small town in the north of Ireland, containing about
2,000 inhabitants. The place is so mean in appearance, and so unim-
portant, that geographers and travellers — those universal describers — have
scarcely deigned to notice it. Its principal buildings consist of two meet-
ing-houses and a post-office. The rural scenery around it is much dis-
figured by the vicinity of a large Irish bog, on one side of which, fronting
towards the miry waste, stands the white-washed cottage of Alexander
Carson. As the traveller passes from Tubbermore in the direction of
Deny, his eye rests only upon a vast extent of mountain land, thinly
covered with stunted heath, over which he may toil the livelong day amid
the solitudes of nature, uncheered by any abode of man, except one
miserable hut in the middle of the wide expanse.
The inhabitants of the north of Ireland are a mixed race, the majority
being of Scottish origin, whose ancestors fled thither from prelatical per-
secution, because they could there enjoy their beloved Presbyterianism,
unharassed by the soldiers of the English king. Into their new home
they carried, not only their stable religious principles, but their sober in-
dustry, and careful attention to all the arts of civilized life. By the prac-
tical application of the steadiness and intelligence, so characteristic of the
land from which they sprung, the north of Ireland has been made to differ
as widely from the rude and uncultured south, as if they were not both
parts of the same green isle. Almost every thing in this region is Scot-
tish. Three fourths of the people are Presbyterians ; a few, consisting
chiefly of the gentry and their dependants, belong to the Episcopal or
established church ; the remainder are Roman Catholics. The Scottish
population are readily distinguished by the broad Scotch dialect, which
has crossed the water, and still continues among them ; while the original
inhabitants are equally well marked by their ruddy complexions, sandy
hair, Irish brogue, and strong Roman Catholic superstitions. Education
has made considerable progress in this part of the country ; and it may
safely be asserted, that the working classes, and especially those engaged
in agriculture, are much better instructed and more intelligent, than the
same classes in England. The people of Tubbermore partake largely of
the characteristics both of the north and west of Ireland. Their little
village lies almost upon the boundary line between Popery and Protest-
antism, where the two races and religions meet and mingle on somewhat
equal terms. In this community, some fifty years ago, Mr. Carson was
settled as Presbyterian minister. His birth was in a place about twelve
miles distant, called Artrae. He had received his education in the Uni-
MEMOIR OF DR. CARSON. XXV
versity of Glasgow, at the same time with a large number of other stu-
dents, who have since become eminent in the religious world. His
preparatory classical course was of the most thorough kind ; and the
closeness of his application, during his residence at the University, was
evinced by his graduating, with the first honours, ip a large class, contain-
ing, among others afterwards distinguished, such men as Dr. Wardlaw of
Glasgow, and Dr. Brown of Langton. It is remarkable, that his published
works contain replies to some productions of each of these his former
classmates.
On his entrance into public life, he speedily manifested that a solid
foundation had been laid for future eminence. Among his earlier writings,
was a work on the figures of speech, in which he developed those self-
evident principles in the philosophy of language, by the aid of which he
has since been able to clear his way through all the sophistries that had
entangled and obscured the imagery of Scripture. This work has been
regarded as a standard one on the subject of which it treats.
As a Presbyterian minister, he was highly esteemed by his brethren,
and generally considered one of the first minds connected with that body
in Ireland. It is very creditable to both parties, that, although he left
their connection, and has since been much engaged as a controversialist,
dealing heavy blows upon all who will not fully obey the institutions, of
Christ ; yet the Presbyterians, both ministers and people, still speak of
him with the greatest respect as a christian of devoted piety, and award
to him as a scholar the highest rank in the country. The writer has often
heard them express their regret that Mr. Carson did not remain in their
communion, as in that case he would probably have been appointed to the
Professorship of Moral Philosophy in the Royal College of Belfast, as
the best qualified man in Ireland for that situation.
At the period of Mr. Carson's induction into the christian ministry, re-
ligion had sadly declined in Ireland. The ministers, who first planted
Presbyterianism there, were men of burning zeal and holy devotedness.
They had lost all for religion, and for its sake were exiles from their na-
tive land. They, therefore, knew well how to value it ; and they infused
the same spirit into the congregations which they gathered. Filled with
a first love, those churches then stood forth " fair as the moon, clear as
the sun, and terrible as an army with banners." Their steps were free ;
for, although the government of the country was against them, still they
were not persecuted, and were amenable only to King Jesus. Courting
not the smile of the world, and fearing not its frowns, they gave their
whole hearts to the work of the Lord.
XXVI MEMOIR OF DR. CARSON.
But, alas ! in an evil day for Ireland, Satan, unable to destroy the men
of God by the flood which he cast after them, laid a plan to entrap them
in the deceitful snare of riches, and to paralize their zeal by the withering
influence of secular patronage. The Irish Presbyterians were supposed
to be unfriendly to th% existing form of government ; and cunning states-
men, well instructed by the prince of darkness, saw that the most effectual
way of gaining them over to toryism, was to pension their clergy. Over-
tures were accordingly made to them ; and almost all the ministers of the
Synod of Ulster became at once voluntary stipendiaries of the govern-
ment, receiving an annual gift from the public treasury, termed " Regium
Donum."
This device had the effect which its authors intended. The ministers
soon ceased to bear testimony against the evils and corruptions of the age.
They became worldly-minded, and spent their time in cultivating their
fine farms, instead of faithfully preaching the gospel, and laboriously tend-
ing the vineyard of the Lord. Religion was soon allowed to take care
of itself. Church discipline fell into neglect. Evangelical truth gave place
to moral essays, and often to absolute socinianism, in which the whole
scheme of human redemption was neutralized. Regeneration, and holi-
ness of heart and life were scouted as unnecessary and fanatical. The
church-courts became arenas for angry debate between the Orthodox and
the Arians ; and true piety almost abandoned the land.*
At this juncture, Mr. Carson entered upon the ministerial office at Tub-
bermore. In the general disregard of religion which prevailed, the peo-
ple of his charge were not behind their neighbours. Horse-races, cock-
fights, and other forms of sinful diversion .were frequent, and were
numerously attended even by professing christians. The soul of this
pious servant of God was deeply grieved. He knew well the heaven-
born excellence of Christianity, and clearly understood what should be
" the fruits of the Spirit ;" but he beheld around him only the works of
the devil. He rode into the throng that crowded the race-course, and
there saw the members of his own church flying in every direction to
escape from his sight. What was he to do ? He had preached the truth
fully — had warned the offenders of their danger, and set before them the
terrors of the Lord. But now he felt that there was another step to be
* Since the period here referred to, the state of the Presbyterian churches in Ireland
has greatly improved. The separation of the Unitarian congregations from the Synod
of Ulster, and the introduction of Sunday schools, have effected a very delightful re-
formation in that body. They are now as evangelical in doctrine, and as zealous for
the spread of the gospel, as any class of Presbyterians in the world.
MEMOIR OF DR. CARSON. XXVll
taken. This was the exercise of Scriptural discipline upon those who
would not live as christians ; a task easy in thought, but which he found
most difficult in execution. These people had been introduced into the
church just eight days after their entrance into the world. They had
drank in their religion with their infant nourishment. They had been
permitted to approach the sacramental table as soon as they possessed the
important qualification of being able to repeat the " Shorter Catechism."
They paid the stipend regularly— had their own pews in their meeting-
house— and felt that, while they attended divine service on Sunday, brought
forward their children for baptism, and committed no gross immorality,
they had an unquestioned right to the privileges of the church, and ought
not to be placed " ex cathedra " for such trifling matters as vain amuse-
ments, and a worldly life. In short, they held themselves perfectly inde-
pendent, and spurned all the restraints of discipline. Aid was then sought
by Mr. Carson from the higher court, the Presbytery. Here certainly he
might expect, that delinquents would be dealt with according to their
merits. Here lay the great statute-book of the kingdom of the clergy
— the Westminster Confession of Faith. Here also was the lesser light,
the " Code of Discipline," containing the enactments, partly of the Bible,
and partly of the Church, with all the legal rules of proceeding in cases
of " fama clamosa." And here were the Reverend, the Clergy, lords of
God's heritage, ready to execute the laws. Surely, could he once put this
mighty machinery in motion, his infected flock must speedily be purified
from unworthy members. But no ! far from it. This vast system of
church-laws had not been framed to regulate the conduct of a spiritual
body, like the primitive churches — for whose government the rules of the
Bible would have been sufficient — but to hold together, in a state of reli-
gious formalism, the unnatural and discordant amalgam of saint and sin-
ner, the wheat and the tares, the church and the world. Now this was
precisely the condition of the people at Tubbermore. They had the
"form of godliness," but were destitute of its power; and the legislation
of a formal church could supply no remedy.
Abandoning his hope of church improvement from the workings of ec-
clesiastical courts, Mr. Carson now gathered around him all that had been
written upon church government, and toiled his way through the heaps of
rubbish by which he was encompassed ; until, casting aside all human
teaching, and guided only by the light of inspiration, his eye rested on
the simple, scriptural model, of a congregation of spiritual men, govern-
ing themselves solely by the word of God. Then did he, for the first
time, perceive the real difficulties in which he had been placed. His
XXVlll MEMOIR OF DR. CARSON.
church was composed of worldly people, whom neither force nor persua-
sion could bring into subjection to the laws of Christ. The work thus
extended before him into one of awful magnitude, and in it vain was the
help of man. The building was to be laid anew of lively stones— of
members, fitted by a renovated nature, to have place in the temple of the
Lord. The well defined outline of the house of God — the beautiful ex-
emplar of New Testament Christianity — now rose before him, in all its
harmonious proportions, and radiant with its first loveliness ; concentrat-
ing upon itself his most ardent affections, and strengthening his faith, that
he might be able fearlessly to execute the task of developing it before his
fellow-men.
One of his first objects was to regain his religious freedom by aban-
doning the Synod. In a work which he published at this time, entitled
" Reasons for leaving the Synod of Ulster," he sets down this as his
second reason for taking that important step. " I cannot," he says, " be
a member of the General Synod, without renouncing my christian liberty,
and submitting my conscience to be ruled and lorded over by man. I am
not allowed to be directed by my own conscience in the service of my
Master. I must not act on my own conviction of what is right and
wrong; but according to the caprice of others; nay, of those whom I
esteem the decided enemies of the Lord Jesus."
In this production, he maintains, with great force of reasoning, the pri-
mitive independence of the churches. From his argument on this point,
we extract a few passages, in order to show the principles by which he
was actuated in this interesting crisis of his history.
" That form of church government which is capable of the least abuse,
is the most likely to be divine. Now, unquestionably, this is Indepen-
dency. If a particular church on this plan degenerates, becomes errone-
ous, or indifferent, it has no power to injure others, or draw them into its
errors. If all the independent churches of a nation were to degenerate
except one, that one cannot be compelled or overawed to follow their ex-
ample. But it is quite contrary with Presbyterianism. I know, indeed,
it is said, that the Presbyterian system is better calculated to prevent error
from creeping into congregations, by the power which the majority claims
over the minority. But how should one man, or one congregation, keep
another from error ? By compulsion, or persuasion ? I apprehend there
is no lawful means for one church to keep another from error, but by re-
monstrance and exhortation. If these fail, pains, penalties, imprison-
ments, confiscations, and death, would be useless. Force may make hypo-
crites, but can never make a christian. But let the history of Synods
MEMOIR OF DR. CARSON. XXIX
vouch their utility and efficiency in restraining error, and preserving vital
religion. They may for a time preserve orthodoxy in the letter, but mid-
night darkness may reign with an orthodox creed. ' The natural man can-
not know the things of the Spirit of God, because they are spiritually dis-
cerned.' Vital religion seems in a great measure extinguished, even among
those who make the highest pretensions to orthodoxy. A violent, wrathful
spirit of party, and an ardent zeal for human forms and human creeds, seem
pretty generally substituted for spirituality, and catholic christian love."
"Again, that form of church government which cannot preserve purity
of doctrine without human expedients, is not so likely to be the scripture
model, as that which can attain and preserve the highest possible degree
of vital religion, as well as purity of doctrine, without admitting, in any
instance, the devices of the wisdom of man. Now it is generally acknow-
ledged by Presbyterians themselves, that it is impossible to maintain uni-
formity of opinion among them, without a formula, or Confession of Faith,
to be publicly recognized by all the members. But it must be evident
to every unprejudiced person, that there is no formula in the Scriptures.
That constitution, then, which requires one to maintain purity, is not
likely to be of God."
"Lastly, that form of church government which leads us most to the
Scriptures, and requires in church members the greatest acquaintance with
them, is the most likely to be that of the New Testament. Now, with-
out aij intimate acquaintance with the Bible, Independents cannot advance
a step in church affairs. I might speak from what I have witnessed of
the knowledge of the Scriptures among Independents. But I speak only
of its necessity, arising from the constitution of their churches. With
them it is absolutely essential, not merely in church rulers, but in private
members. The Bible is their code of laws ; they have no other confes-
sion or book of discipline. They can do nothing without it ; it must be
continually in their hands ; the rulers rule only by the word of God. But
a man may be a Presbyterian all his life, either pastor or private member,
with a very slender acquaintance with the Bible. A knowledge of forms
and of ancient usages, of ecclesiastical canons and books of discipline, is
the chief qualification necessary for a Presbyterian judicatory."
Influenced by views such as these, and strong in the conclusions to
which he had arrived, Mr. Carson threw up his government salary, and
removed from the farm he had formerly occupied, that he might devote
himself more entirely to his ministerial work. It was deemed at the time
a most astonishing occurrence, that a man high in public favour, of splen-
did talents, and elevated piety, should abandon a church in what was
XXX MEMOIR OF DR. CARSON.
called the zenith of its glory, to take up his abode with poverty and con-
tempt. Little could the people comprehend the power of christian prin-
ciple by which he was impelled. Hence they concluded with respect to
him, as Festus did concerning Paul, that "much learning had made him
mad;" and his presumed insanity was received by many, as the only
rational explanation of a course of conduct so far above the wisdom of
this world. He was then married, and had a rising family. His wife
was the daughter of a Mr. Leidly, a linen-bleacher of wealth and respect-
ability, residing in the same county. On hearing the sad tale of the heresy
of his son-in-law, Mr. Leidly immediately visited him, and spent a long
time in endeavouring to persuade him to return to the Synod. Tired of
his importunities, and well knowing what would be the result, Mr. Car-
son told him that he would leave the whole matter to the decision of his
wife. With renewed hope the father betook himself to his daughter ;
placed before her the good that might be done, and the comforts which
they might enjoy, by retracing their steps ; and, on the other hand, set
forth, in gloomy colours, the poverty into which they would be thrown
by continuing in their present position ; declaring the firm determination
to which he had come, never, in that case, to relieve them ; and assuring
her that her children would soon be starving for bread. But how full of
serene faith and pious confidence was her reply ! " Father," said she,
" God feeds the young ravens when they cry unto him ; and I cannot
believe, that, while we are striving to do his will, he will let the young
Carsons starve." Thus did that noble woman sustain and cheer on her
husband in his trying hour, and forsake, not only houses and lands, but
father and mother, in obedience to the commands of Christ. From that
day, she was to her parents as a stranger. "What a sublime spectacle is
it, to behold the christian struggling, by the sacrifice of all that earth holds
dear, to free himself from the domination of his fellow men, and from the
customs of the world — not that he may enjoy a licentious liberty, and
walk after the imagination of his own heart ; but that he may bring his
soul into more complete subordination to the statutes of Heaven's King,
and devote his life more unreservedly to the service of God — that thus
God may be " all in all !"
For some years after his secession from the General Synod, Mr. Car-
son continued to occupy his former place of worship, and to preach to
the congregation as before. But he had now embraced a principle Avhich
contained within it the germ of yet further reform. He had recognized
the Bible as the only law-book in the kingdom of Christ ; and had taught
those members of his church who still adhered to his ministry, to rise
MEMOIR OP DR. CARSON. XXXI
above human authority and human customs in religion, and bring all
things to the Word and Testimony of God. It was by losing sight of this
radical principle, that early Christianity degenerated into Romish supersti-
tion. Ecclesiastical authority laid the foundation, and worldly policy
raised the superstructure of that mass of abominations, which is to be
destroyed by the brightness of the Lord's coming. The partial applica-
tion of this principle shook the Papal hierarchy, and brought forth the
Reformed churches from its dark embrace. And it is to its full, fearless,
and faithful application alone, that we are to look for a complete emanci-
pation from the trammels of will-worship, and from the various admix-
tures and perversions by which men have corrupted the simplicity of the
Gospel. This use of the Bible as the only law-book, and the rejection
of ecclesiastical authority, carried Mr. Carson and his congregation to re-
sults, of which, in the beginning, they little dreamed. Of such progress,
however, they are far from being solitary examples. The history of reli-
gions reformations demonstrates, that in all cases where this single ele-
mental truth has been clearly developed, and wisely brought into exercise,
it has uniformly led in the same direction ; and, consequently, has pro-
duced a new basis of christian union, differing widely from any which
human systems have ever afforded. In the Baptist Memorial of July,
1844, we find an account of the rise and establishment of the Baptist
church in Sturbridge, Massachusetts. The narrative informs us, that, in
the preaching of Whitfield and the Tennants, a principle was held forth
and inculcated, which led to conclusions that they themselves neither
adopted nor contemplated. " They taught that the Bible, and the Bible
alone, is the religion of Protestants. The consequences of this position,
however, those excellent men did not follow out in their full length.
But others, guided by the light which this sentiment sheds upon the mind,
began vigorously to inquire, not only what are the great fundamental truths
of Christianity, but also what are the ordinances of Christ's house. The
result was, that many of the converts of those days, became Baptists.
Taking the Scriptures for their only guide, they arrived by a plain and
direct course of reasoning at this result. This was the origin of the
Baptist church in Sturbridge. At first they believed in and practised in-
fant sprinkling. The fact that this is not an ordinance of Scripture, had
probably never entered their minds. But still the other principles which
they had adopted, especially that of making the Bible the supreme arbiter
in religion, prepared the way for their giving up that unscriptural cere-
mony."
About the time that Mr. Carson left the Presbyterians in Ireland, a
XXXU MEMOIR OF DR. CARSON.
mighty movement towards primitive Christianity also took place in Scotland.
The Haldanes, together with Wardlaw, Ewing, and Innis, had become
alive to the unscriptural character of worldly churches ; and were busy in
organizing christian societies upon the Bible only, with the sincere deter-
mination to regulate all the ordinances of Christ's house in accordance with
the plain dictates of Revelation. They adopted the congregational order,
and weekly communion, throughout Scotland ; but were not Baptists.
In the year 1807, James Haldane, after having sprinkled an infant, was
accosted by his little son, a child of six years old, with the pertinent ques-
tion, "Father, did that child believe ?" " No," said the surprised parent,
" why do you ask me such a question ?" " Because, father, I have read
the whole of the New Testament, and I find that all, who were baptized,
believed. Did the child believe ?" It was enough. God's simple truth,
which had been hidden from the wise and prudent, was revealed to the
babe. The strange question, " Did the child believe ?" haunted the mind
of that father, until, after a thorough examination, he renounced his for-
mer errors, and was publicly immersed. His brother Robert soon fol-
lowed his example. Whole churches saw the light of this ordinance
flashing upon them ; and thousands of the most devoted men of Scotland,
who had taken the Bible as their sole directory, reformed their " Taber-
nacle Reformation," and followed the Lord fully.
Now it is certain that when Mr. Carson withdrew from the Presbyte-
rian connection, he had no idea of becoming a Baptist. Indeed, several
of his flock were before him in discovering the fact that believers only
are the proper subjects of baptism. For when the question was first
mooted among them, and some became convinced that infant sprinkling
was never instituted by Christ — although he did not attempt to interfere
with their obedience — yet he took ground against the novelty ; and, as he
himself says, " defended the citadel, while he had any ammunition in the
store-house." But the mind of Carson could not but advance to right
conclusions. His reasoning powers had been too thoroughly disciplined,
for insufficient evidence long to satisfy him — especially now, when the
laws of the church could no more settle the matter, but the appeal must
be made directly to the Bible. Truth was his fortune* — his delight — his
all ; and for the truth of God he was ready to suffer trials even greater
than had yet fallen to his lot. It is deeply to be regretted that there is in
the religious world so little real love for truth ; or rather, we should say,
so little inclination to enter upon those inquiries which might issue in its
attainment. Heathen sages, by calm and candid investigation, were able
to rise far above the superstitious customs of their countrymen ; and for
MEMOIR OF DR. CARSON. XXXlii
such scattered rays of divine light as fell on the mind of a Socrates, were
willing to lay down their lives. But now the painful fact cannot be con-
cealed, that, while the glories of Heaven's Revelation are beaming upon
us, we suffer prejudice to retard our researches, or fear of consequences
to prevent us from doing our duty. Mr. Carson deserves no praise. He
only did what every christian ought to do. He received and he obeyed
the truth. But what vast multitudes, with the truth shining clearly before
them, refuse to follow where it leads !
The object, moreover, for which Mr. Carson was striving, could not
be gained without the surrender of infant church-membership. He saw
around him manifold evidences of the fearful danger which resulted to the
souls of men, from allowing those, who had nothing of Christianity but
the name, to share the privileges of the church relation. He had re-
nounced the Synod, in order that he might enjoy a purer communion, and
be guiltless of the blood of all men. This noble purpose led him directly
to the inquiry, in what the qualifications for church-membership consisted.
He perceived that the house of God was designed to be wholly spiritual,
composed of lively stones united to Christ, the living Head. From that
inspired volume, to whose teachings he implicitly bowed, he learned, that
the true members of the christian family were sons, born not of blood,
nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God — begotten
by him through the incorruptible seed of his truth which abideth forever ;
that faith is indispensable to a union with the body of Christ ; that faith
cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God; and that, conse-
quently, infants, incapable alike of hearing and of believing, and growing
up with all the manifestations of a carnal nature, were not lawful subjects
for admission into the brotherhood of the renewed. Could he introduce
these unregenerate offspring of Adam into the church of Christ, on the
right of their natural birth, and in the vague anticipation that they might
afterwards be born again ? And if he did thus mingle the seed of men with
the sons of God, could he expect to guard against the tendencies in such
a society to a merely formal religion ?" Could he admit the children of
believers to religious privileges along with believers themselves, and yet
have a pure, regenerated church, qualified for spiritual communion with
its Lord ? No ; this was more than he could accomplish ; and never will
the ingenuity of man, with all its multifarious devices, be able to effect it.
It is impossible ! The very attempt is an absurdity whose folly and hope-
lessness all history and all experience have conclusively demonstrated.
When it was found that Mr. Carson, so far from being likely to return
to the Synod, was proceeding yet further in his course of reform, the hos-
E
XXXIV MEMOIR OP DR. CARSON.
tility of the disaffected portion of his own church could no longer be
restrained. Vigorous efforts were now made by the Presbyterians to dis-
possess him of the meeting-house. A party was organized, whose business
it should be to eject him by force. While he was preaching, on a Lord's
day, to a large congregation, they entered, and announced their intention
of thrusting him from the pulpit. He quieted the rising tumult, and re-
questing the intruders to wait until the close of his discourse, assured
them that he would then voluntarily retire. They accepted the proposal,
and remained. After the services were concluded, as he descended from
the pulpit, and was passing out, one of his deacons lifted the Bible from
the desk, swung it upon his shoulder, and taking up his march in the rear
of his pastor, exclaimed, " let all who wish to follow the Bible come
this loay." The house was instantly emptied. A vast mass congregated
in a green field near by ; and there, guided by the Bible, as by a Sheki-
nah of glory, a little band, sixteen in number, partook, with hearts joyful
amid their tribulations, of the emblems of their Redeemer's love. This
was the feeble beginning of greater things — the chrysalis from which was
to spring a glorious gospel church, walking in the ordinances of Christ
blameless, and pouring a flood of light upon the surrounding region. From
that period, the Lord has been constantly adding unto them the saved,
insomuch that their present number approaches 500, although very many
baptized into their fellowship have removed from the district. They have
also had the happiness of seeing other churches rising up around them,
on the same apostolical model, and, animated by a kindred spirit, observing
and promoting a strict obedience to the requirements of the Saviour.
After they had left their meeting-house, they assembled for worship,
during summer, in the open air ; and in winter, in an old barn kindly lent
them for the purpose. Thus they continued to meet, until the shell of
their new house was erected. We say the shell, for their means enabled
them to do little more than to put up the walls and enclose the building.
For many years they occupied that house, and saw it crowded by large
congregations, although only an earthen floor supported them, and the eye
was permitted to scan the rude frame-work of a roof unrelieved by an
ornamented ceiling. Latterly, they have considerably enlarged it to ac-
commodate their increasing numbers ; and we believe that the improving
taste of the age has been evinced in removing some of its more glaring
architectural defects. Still, however, the English visitor is apt to return
to his own more favoured Isle, with his imagination filled with strange
pictures of Irish ruralness and simplicity. Yet humble as that building
is, that can be said of it which was never true of many a gorgeous cathe-
MEMOIR OF DR. CARSON. XXXV
dral — that for many years a pure gospel has resounded there ; and that
there the living word has been the power of God unto salvation to a mul-
titude of souls, who, though some of them are scattered far from their
native village, will ever remember the hallowed spot which witnessed
their birth into an everlasting kingdom.
The situation of Mr. Carson, at the period when he thus went forth
from his old connections, was peculiarly trying. His regular means of
subsistence were now all gone. He had thrown himself upon the volun-
tary offerings of God's people ; they were willing to do what they could ;
but that was little, as the more wealthy of his former congregation had
remained by " the stuff." Another minister was called to occupy the
pulpit which he had vacated; and the men of means and influence soon
rallied around the standard of the things that had been. For, at all
times, as in the time of Jesus of Nazareth, the question goes, " Have any
of the rulers believed on him ?" Unfortunately it occurs, that our little,
petty aristocracies can hardly ever find their way to truth, unless truth
happens first to find its way to popular favour, by the help of God and
the poor. Then, indeed, when it has become fashionable, they will
awake as from a dream, and graciously patronize it. Thus did the re-
spectable citizens of Tubbermore abandon in his difficulties a man whom
the world will admire, and elect to themselves another christian teacher
who will scarce ever be heard of beyond his own two-mile circle. Nobly,
however, have the people of the district since redeemed their character,
by flocking around the banner of Bible truth which Mr. Carson un-
furled. Never did a man more fearlessly trust the promises of God, and
never were those promises more faithfully verified than in his case. He
has at no time received from his people more than $250, per annum ; and
for a long period subsequent to the events we have been narrating, the
support which they were able to afford him was far less. Yet he has
always lived in comparative comfort ; has been blessed with a numerous
family ; has educated them well ; and placed them in respectable situa-
tions of usefulness to themselves and to society. To this result, the ex-
tensive sale of his valuable writings has no doubt materially contributed.
Mr. Brown, the minister who was installed in the Tubbermore church
after Mr. Carson's secession, was a man of rather combative propensi-
ties ; and, mistaking his vocation, he considered himself as placed in a
sort of dangerous pass, for the defence of the faith as it is in Presbyteri-
anism. Hence he has been frequently engaged in hostile demonstrations,
which, if he had more correctly estimated his own abilities, and the
XXXVI MEMOIR OF DR. CARSON.
strength of his cause, he would have studiously avoided. After the pub-
lication of Mr. Carson's work on " The Mode and Subjects of Baptism,"
an attempt at reply was made by Mr. Brown, and a rejoinder was also
published by the author. This little controversy finally extended to per-
haps two pamphlets on each side. In the present revised edition of his
work, Mr. Carson has embodied nearly all the pamphlets which he previ-
ously issued in answer to the criticisms of various eminent men both in
Great Britain and America ; but he has shown his sense of the futility
of Mr. Brown's reviews, by omitting altogether his refutations of them.
This Tubbermore discussion, although not worthy of being handed down
to posterity in the following immortal work, yet served to convince many
in that immediate vicinity, that their previous practice was not so capable
of defence as they had fondly hoped. The consequence was, that Mr.
Carson's church began rapidly to increase ; and the people, laying aside
their former notion of his insanity, now listened to him as one more com-
petent to expound the Scriptures than the men by whom he was sur-
rounded.
The church at Tubbermore became Baptist by degrees. Some of the
members were baptized before the pastor. Owing, probably, in part to
this circumstance, they have never regarded an obedience to this ordinance
as an indispensable condition of admission to the Lord's supper. Indeed,
they have carried the principle of open communion to the utmost extent,
by receiving members into their body simply upon evidence of their con-
version, with but little inquiry whether they agreed with them on the
subject of Baptism, expecting that whenever they became convinced of
their duty to be immersed, they would attend to it.
To the great majority of Baptists it will appear, that this practice, to-
gether with their open communion, was not in accordance with the ex-
ample of those primitive churches, which, in other points, it was Mr.
Carson's delight to imitate ; and that its tendency must be to throw into
the shade an ordinance prominent in the New Testament, and to dissever
baptism from the gospel of which it is so expressive an emblem. Cer-
tain it is, however, that Mr. Carson believed this plan to be consistent
with the will of the Lord ; and this fact, while it may seem to show that
his views of gospel order were not, in all respects, precise and clear, is,
at the same time, a strong proof of his extreme liberality and kindness of
disposition. It ought, therefore, to bespeak for his writings a very favour-
able attention from those who are so loud in their complaints of the want
of charity among Baptists. He was as charitable as their hearts could
MEMOIR OF DR. CARSON. XXXV11
wish ; and was ever more ready to hold fellowship even with those Pedo-
baptists, who otherwise taught a pure gospel, than with such Baptists as
he might conceive to have departed from genuine orthodoxy.
He united, in a wonderful degree, an enlarged charity with the holiest
boldness in defence of truth. In all the intercourse of private life, he
eminently displayed the humility and gentleness of the christian charac-
ter. Indeed, he seemed simple and childlike even to a fault. Yet his
productions are remarkable for the boldness and originality of the thoughts,
the strength of the arguments, and the severity of the rebukes, which they
contain. Many have conceived a most erroneous impression of his whole
character from the apparent harshness of his criticisms. This, however,
arises, in a great measure, from a mistake as to the origin of what may
be called " the attic salt " in writing. The author of Junius was proba-
bly a very goodnatured man, although his writings are fearfully severe.
He knew that the disease which he had to treat, required a powerful re-
medy ; and he applied a caustic one. No man of ill temper can write
keenly. As the razor, when its edge becomes ruffled, will not cut freely ;
so angry passion weakens the force of argument, and prevents criticism
from taking effect. The man who would criticise with vigour, must
possess the power of self-control in a large degree. Coolness will
enable him to polish his shafts, and direct them to the best advantage.
Anger and wrath evaporate in abuse. But no one will find this applied
by Mr. Carson to his opponents. True, he will not allow impertinent
quibblers, who, to support the system of their own party, continue still to
argue against the clearest demonstrations of Scripture, to pass without re-
buke. And where is the ardent lover of truth, who will not say that such
ought to be rebuked and made to retire ashamed, that the public mind
may no more be darkened by their perversions ? We frankly confess that
the more we read on the Baptismal controversy, the more our charity
compels us to struggle against the conviction which forces itself upon us,
that, on this subject, it is not light that is most wanted — but religious
honesty.
If, beyond this, it should still be supposed that there are, in Mr. Car-
son's writings, instances of unwarrantable severity, we would submit, in
alleviation, the national character. The Irish people are remarkable for
vigorous conceptions and strong feelings, which they express with very
little attention to softness and suavity of language ; and when this Irish
vehemence is united with an ardent love of truth, and dislike of subtle
perversions, it may give to their publications an appearance of unkindness
which is really very foreign to the writers themselves. Certain it is, that
XXXV111 MEMOIR OF DR. CARSON.
Mr. Carson has been most favourably known as a peace-maker ; and
when troubles have arisen in some of the little churches of Ulster, his
presence and prudent counsels have generally contributed to settle their
difficulties, and to calm their agitations.
As a preacher, he was very remarkable. He possessed all the solid
qualifications of an orator, without any of the pomp and display usually
attendant upon those who are regarded as good speakers. His manner
was natural and graceful. His illustrations were very abundant, but never
learned or far-fetched. The scenes of rural life supplied him with a rich
fund of incidents and analogies, that enabled him to make truth plain to
the weakest capacity, and which told powerfully on the unsophisticated
sympathies of human nature. His usual course was, not to sermonize,
but to expound the word of God, by passing regularly through its succes-
sive portions. This plan afforded him full opportunity to bring out all
the latent resources of his mind, and to apply his vast learning to the im-
portant practical purpose of solving the various difficulties which his hear-
ers might encounter in their reading ; while it enabled him completely to
avoid that petty ingenuity which is too often exercised in building a dis-
course upon some insulated or perverted sentence.
The results of expository teaching have always been of the most de-
lightful kind. It was the invariable custom of Scottish preachers, in for-
mer times, to employ the forenoon of every Lord's day in the exposition
of a chapter. This they denominated lecturing ; and so highly did the
people value this exercise, that, in calling a young minister to a parish, the
great question was, not how he could preach, but how he could lecture.
Of these congregations, as compared with those of our own time, we be-
lieve it might almost be said, "There were giants in those days." The
fact is, that the great mass of professors in this age, though evidently dis-
playing a more enlightened and christian liberality than their forefathers,
are far behind them in familiar acquaintance with their Bibles ; and must,
we fear, remain so while the practice continues of making preaching con-
sist mainly in uninstructive appeals to feeling. In religion, as in every
thing else, the judgment ought to be the regulator both of the affections
and the conduct. The great facts of Bible history form a solid foundation
on which Christianity rests, plain to every mind, and speaking to every
heart. The piety that is built upon an intimate knowledge of these, and
a cordial faith in them, can weather all storms ; while that which depends
upon the changing eddies of human emotion, can withstand nothing, and
is entirely delusive.
Under the mode of teaching above described, the church over which
MEMOIR OF DR. CARSON. XXXIX
Mr. Carson presided grew exceedingly in scriptural intelligence, and a
comprehensive understanding of divine things. In this particular, the
writer regards them as having surpassed any christian society with which
it has ever been his lot to mingle ; and his opportunities for observation
have not been limited within a narrow circle. Among them, many young
men have been trained up, who are now scattered abroad, labouring in
the gospel, either as city missionaries, or as pastors of churches. The
high state of intelligence to which this people have been brought, may
also be partly owing to the abundant opportunities afforded the members
for the exercise and cultivation of their gifts. It has generally been their
custom to allow such brethren as were skilled in the word of righteous-
ness, to speak to their fellow men in the public assembly, in accordance,
as they believe, with the direction of the Apostle. " Let us wait — him
that teacheth on teaching, and him that exhorteth on exhortation."
This practice, it must be admitted, has been carried by the Scotch Bap-
tists to a most extravagant length. Many of them have concluded that
the members of a church have a right to talk, whether it be to the edifi-
cation or the annoyance of others. As those least qualified to speak well,
are often most fond of hearing their own voice, the custom, when thus
licentiously indulged, has invariably banished the congregation, and left
the would-be orator to address himself to empty benches. It has also
contributed to destroy the regular ministry which Christ has instituted,
by leading the members of churches to suppose that it was better for
them to do the work of christian teaching by turns, than to sustain any
one man as a constant preacher of the gospel. These are some of its
abuses. But what good thing may not be abused ? It must, we think,
be obvious to every mind, that all which is to be done for the spread of
the gospel in a congregation, was never intended by the great Head of
the Church to be thrown upon the shoulders of one man ; but that all
the members of the body should bear their part, each in his appropriate
sphere, and in that department of duty to which he is best adapted. In
this way, by a prudent and judicious employment of the gifts which God
has bestowed, the talents of the church may be brought out, and many a
christian fitted for usefulness, whose capacity for doing good might other-
wise have remained comparatively hidden and unknown.
The congregation at Tubbermore was also divided into districts ; and
in each locality meetings were held, which were addressed, with great
effect, by a band of brethren who gave themselves diligently to the study
of the Scriptures ; and who were competent, from their knowledge and
piety, to act as preachers in almost any situation. Thus the word of the
Xl MEMOIR OF DR. CARSON.
Lord had free course and was glorified ; while the pastor had leisure to
make full preparation for his public duties.
Every Lord's day, for the last forty years, has this church commemo-
rated the Saviour's death by the breaking of bread, regarding it as binding
upon them to do so, as often as the return of hallowed time calls them to
remember his resurrection. This is a universal practice amongst all the
Congregational and Baptist churches both in Scotland and Ireland. As
authority far it, they appeal to Acts xx. 7 : "And upon the first day of the
week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached
unto them." From this they infer that one of the most prominent objects
for which the churches met on that day, was the breaking of bread. In
their belief that such was the primitive custom, they consider themselves
sustained by what is known of the manner in which christian institutions
were observed for many years after the death of the Apostles. On this
point, they cite the testimony of Justin Martyr, who, in his Second Apo-
logy for Christianity, says, " On the first day of the week all christians, in
the cities and in the country, are wont to assemble together, because it is
the day of the Lord's resurrection. They then read the sacred writings ;
listen to an oration from the bishop ; join together in prayer ; partake of
the Lord's supper ; and close by a collection for the widows and poor."
This may be viewed as an interesting picture of Apostolical order in its
native simplicity, before the rude hand of corruption had marred its fair
proportions.
The increasing frequency with which this ordinance is observed, among
most evangelical denominations, is a pleasing feature of the present day ;
and we cannot but regard the extensive change from annual communion —
a custom derived from the superstitions of Easter — to its monthly cele-
bration, as a cheering approach to primitive example.*
Mr. Carson's church were accustomed to partake of the supper in the
* Note by the Committee of Publication. — In admitting this account of the pecu-
liarities of their Scotch and Irish brethren, the committee wish not to be understood as
favouring all the views and practices described, or as encouraging their propagation in
this country. They believe that mixed communion, and the admission of unbaptized
persons to church-fellowship, are in direct violation of scriptural authority ; that pub-
lic exhortation by laymen in Lord's day assemblies, is an irregularity, tending to pro-
duce disorder, and many other evils ; and that Christ has given us no express precept
for the weekly observance of the supper — but has simply required that, " as often as we
do it, we should do it in remembrance of him." Yet as the object of this memoir is
not to defend particular points of doctrine or order, but only to sketch the history of a
most eminent and beloved minister, it was deemed advisable to keep back none of the
facts necessary to throw light on the circumstances in which he was placed, and the
course which he pursued.
MEMOIR OF DR. CARSON. Xli
public assembly, during (he morning service, believing that, in this man-
ner, they made it an instrument of really showing forth the Lord's death,
and proclaiming, by visible emblem, the great facts of his Gospel ; and
deeming the ordinance far more lively and impressive when thus admin-
istered in the midst of surrounding spectators, than when observed, as is
often the case, in the general absence of the congregation.
The peculiarities of church order to which we have now alluded,
served, for a long period, to keep up a sort of denominational distinction
between the churches in Scotland and the north of Ireland, and the Eng-
lish Baptists. It was thought by the former, that too little attention was
paid, on the part of the latter, to the scriptural model of church govern-
ment ; while, by the churches of Scotland especially, a narrow-minded
and unlovely spirit was manifested towards all who did not practise like
themselves. In 1840, Dr. Maclay of New York visited Ireland, spent
some time in Tubbermore, admired the harmony, doctrinal soundness, and
efficiency of the church, and was deeply grieved that minute points of
difference should continue to separate brethren, who ought to be uniting
their energies for the advancement of Zion. On passing to London, he
represented the state of the Tubbermore church to some of the ministers
there, informed them of the great liberality of Mr. Carson's disposition,
and advised them to seek a plan of mutual co-operation with him. This
opened the way for his introduction to the English churches.
For several years, a missionary society, sustained and managed by the
Baptists in England, had been labouring to evangelize the dark portions
of Ireland. Schools were established, bible-readers employed, and min-
isters sent forth to itinerate among the destitute population. At length it
was determined that a change in the mode of the society's operations
would be expedient. Many believed that some of the places, on which
large sums had been expended, were so completely immersed in Popish
darkness, and, withal, so unimportant as centres of influence, as not to
present the best points for missionary effort. The< conclusion, therefore,
was, to occupy in future, as far as possible, the more commanding posi-
tions in that country, and from these to extend their colonies by degrees
into other and darker sections. From this time, the attention of the
society was directed to the north of Ireland, which had been hitherto
overlooked ; and the writer of this article, being a native of that region,
was the first missionary appointed to the field. The little churches pre-
viously existing there, seemed to the society to present favourable begin-
nings for more extended labours ; while the only obstacle in the way of
concert with them, arose from the little peculiarities of their church order.
Xlil MEMOIR OF DR. CARSON.
This the society, with a liberality much to be commended, removed, by
allowing their missionaries to organize churches upon any plan which
might seem to them and their people most in harmony with Scripture.
Thus all appearance of estrangement is vanishing among the Baptists of
Ireland. The New Testament is universally taken by them as their only
guide, and they endeavour scrupulously to follow its example. They are
neither Scotch nor English Baptists distinctively, but catholic christians,
extending their fellowship to both. The result of union in this instance,
has been truly an accomplishment of the dying prayer of Jesus, that his
followers might be one, that the world might know that the Father had
sent him. Interesting churches are now rising up throughout the northern
counties. One was organized at Bangor, near Belfast, by the writer,
which continues to prosper. Another has been gathered at Coleraine, to
which a son of Mr. Carson ministered, until he was removed from open-
ing usefulness by an early death. It is now under the care of a mis-
sionary. In both these places convenient houses of worship have been
erected. The writings of Mr. Carson are every where preparing the way
for much wider success than has yet been realized. A Presbyterian min-
ister, and two or three students for the ministry, have forsaken the Gene-
ral Synod, and are now setting forth, not only the doctrines of Christ, but
his ordinances, in their original simplicity. Thus, by the labours of Mr.
Carson, and the union effected between him and the English brethren, a
wide and effectual door has been opened for the introduction of a pure
Gospel into Ireland.
In 1840 the degree of LL. D. was conferred on Mr. Carson by Bacon
College, in the State of Kentucky. To an American college belongs the
credit of having done justice to a man, who deserved the highest honours
which literary institutions can bestow, but who was shut out from receiv-
ing the merited reward of his scholarship in his own country, by his
faithful adherence to primitive example.
During the last three years of his life, Mr. Carson was induced occa-
sionally to visit England, and take part in the missionary meetings of
London and Bristol. He appeared before the congregations of the British
metropolis, not with studied and artificial eloquence, but in the most sim-
ple and natural manner, illustrating the word of God by plain allusions to
the events of rural life ; yet enkindling the hearts of his hearers with his
own holy devotedness, and stirring them up to greater zeal in the work
of the Lord.
The first edition of his unrivalled Treatise on Baptism having become
exhausted, he was requested to enlarge it, and prepare it anew for publi-
MEMOIR OF DR. CARSON. xliU
cation. The English churches, with their accustomed liberality, deter-
mined to raise such a subscription list, as would compensate him for his
arduous researches, and show their high estimate of his character and
labours. Without any solicitation on his part, a numerous list of sub-
scribers was immediately obtained in Great Britain and Ireland ; and the
American Baptist Publication Society, in adopting and issuing the work
in this country, resolved to afford its author a share of the profits arising
from his mental toils.
From the midst of these delightful tokens of the esteem of his breth-
ren, he has been suddenly called to an imperishable reward in heaven.
His mission is accomplished. His literary career has now terminated —
but not before his great task was done. Death could not touch him, until he
had put the finishing hand to this masterly production, in which his name
and his memory shall live through all future time. He who, like Dr.
Carson, has vindicated and rendered prominent an ordinance of Jesus
Christ, by disentangling it from the web of human sophistry and per-
version, has done better for the world, than if he had founded a king-
dom ; and has reared for himself a monument more lasting than pillars of
marble.
The solemn and painful circumstances of his death, we shall lay before
our readers, by presenting them with the following extracts from a letter
written by a gentleman who was studying with him, to Dr. Maclay of
New York.
"Dear Sir,
Your letter of the 5th of July last to the late Dr. Carson lies
before me. As his hand is cold in death, and his sons are greatly afflicted,
it devolves on me to acknowledge your favour.
Knowing that you, and many others of our American brethren, will be
anxious to learn when and how he died, I shall endeavour to furnish you
with a true, though brief account.
He went over to England in July, to advocate the cause of the Baptist
missionary society. For this purpose, he travelled through many parts
of England, and, I believe, most of Wales. When on his return, about
the end of August, he was waiting in Liverpool for the sailing of the Bel-
fast steamer. It was night fall ; and in taking out his watch to ascertain
the hour, he approached unawares to the edge of the dock, and was im-
mediately precipitated into the water, where it was twenty-five feet deep.
Providentially, there were persons near at the time, who, with the aid of
a ladder, succeeded in rescuing him from a watery grave. His shoulder
Xliv MEMOIR OF DR. CARSON.
having been dislocated by the fall, he had it set, and was conveyed on
board the steamer. During the passage he became dangerously ill ; and
though, on his arrival at Belfast, he had the aid of the physicians there,
together with that of his son and son-in-law, Doctors Carson and Clarke
of Coleraine, it was all in vain ; he must go to his rest, and receive what
he often termed the reward of grace. On Saturday morning, August 24th,
1844, he departed in peace, aged 68.
His remains were taken for interment to his residence at Tubbermore.
Oh, what tears were shed, and what voices of lamentation were heard,
over the dear departed warrior ! Never was there such an exhibition of
sorrow in this country before. It would have pierced the soul of any one,
to have beheld the anguish of the old veterans who had stood by him for
the last forty-five years. They looked for their captain, but he was gone !
they sought their general, but he was no more ! Having supplied his
pulpit, most of the time during his absence, it became my painful duty to
do so on the first Lord's day after his departure from our world. But
such a house of weeping hearers I never saw before, and hope I never
may again.
You may be able, in some measure, to calculate the loss which the
churches of Christ have sustained, when I tell you of what he intended
to accomplish. After the death of his beloved and excellent wife, he told
me that he never intended to take another holyday in this world. " I
will," said he, "leave them all for heaven." At another time, he said,
" My head is full of books ; I will write on till I empty myself." One
of the first which he intended to have given us, was a Treatise on the
Atonement. Would that he had been spared to execute it. But God's
purposes must be fulfilled. The eyes of all the Presbyterians of this
country, with a part of the Scotch church, as well as many of other de-
nominations, were on him for some time, expecting this work. At length
he consented to satisfy their wishes. He had the subject thoroughly
studied — the plan formed — authors read — notes taken — and the book
itself all but written. When lo ! he was not, for God took him. He
intended also to write a book, on the best mode of teaching the Churches.
He thought that ministers in general were lamentably deficient in this
matter. When I think of all he designed to do, and which he could do so
well, I am almost overwhelmed with sorrow. You will be glad to learn
that he has left a good deal behind him yet unpublished. He had just
completed a work on " The characteristic style of Scripture" — show-
ing its purity, simplicity, and sublimity, and contrasting the God of the
MEMOIR OF DR. CARSON. xlv
Bible, as therein displayed, with the gods of the Heathen, as described
by their poets. He has also left commentaries on the Epistles to the
Galatians, and to the Hebrews, with many smaller articles.
How irreparable is his loss ! How successful and brilliant has been his
course ! What labours has he undergone, what results has he achieved,
what privations and sacrifices has he endured ! How like was he to the
apostles and primitive disciples ! He preached the Gospel, through good
report, and evil report. Nothing could cool his zeal. Onward ! was
ever his motto. When Christ was to be served, his laws obeyed, or
his truth defended, no force of opposition could discourage or intimidate
him. Many an Alps has he crossed. His arm was mighty when fight-
ing the battles of the Faith.
" He was a warrior in the Christian field,
Who never saw the sword he could not wield."
What shall I say of his assiduity ? For the last fifty years or more, he
was never known to be idle one day. He laboured hard for knowledge.
What shall I say of him as a scholar and a critic ? Viewed in this light,
he was far above either praise or censure. The grand peculiarity of his
mind was critical acumen. He always saw to the bottom of any sub-
ject which he undertook to handle. The foundations of his reasonings
were laid, either in self-evident truths, or in explicit statements from the
Holy Scriptures ; while his honesty of heart would not allow him to de-
viate a single iota from truth, to accomplish any sectarian object. What
shall I say of him as a Christian ? Only this, that with all his classical,
philological, and philosophical acquirements, he had especially learned
the humility of his lowly Master. With the colossal stature of a giant,
he possessed the meekness and simplicity of a child. May we all in this
respect imitate his example. What shall I say of him as a theologian
and a minister ? Nothing. Let his works and his church speak for him.
Might I not safely challenge the world to produce such a church ? In
knowledge and understanding of the Scriptures, its members could teach
many a minister. And is it possible that such a man can ever be for-
gotten ? Never, till the last trumpet sounds. He himself once said of
Luther, " It requires an age to produce a great man in some departments."
But a Carson is not to be found once in a millenary. Who is so blind as not
to see that God made him expressly for his work ? Had not the fire of
God kindled his soul, would courage so romantic, have led him to attack
the hosts of the " Man of sin," in their strongest entrenchment? His
faith was bold as that of Jonathan, when, with his armour-bearer alone,
he assailed the thronged ranks of the Philistines. Of him may be said
Xlvi MEMOIR OF DR. CARSON.
that which was once said of Robert Hall : — " He is gone, and has left the
world without one like him."
Yours truly,
G. C. MOORE.
Tulbermore, Sept. 27, 1844."
How mysterious are the ways of Divine Providence ! It might natu-
rally have been expected that this eminent servant of God, whose habits
were so retiring, that he scarcely ever passed beyond the bounds of his own
flock, except at the imperative call of duty, would have been permitted to
breathe his last amid the quiet scenes which he so fondly loved, and which
had witnessed his sacrifices and his toils. And yet, in a journey under-
taken to promote the Redeemer's triumphs, and while far away from the
spot in which were concentrated all the objects of his earthly affection —
he is summoned suddenly away, and borne, as in a chariot of fire, to
glory. But the Christian is prepared for all events. At home or abroad,
in safety or in peril, he is alike enfolded by the arms of a faithful God.
Carson dies in peace. How could it be otherwise 1 He had eminently
served his generation, and made it his highest joy to do the will of his
Heavenly Father. For Christ's sake he had suffered the loss of all things.
His Lord declares it is enough — and the messenger comes quick from the
celestial realm, to bear him to that bright world, where he shall rest from
his labours, and wear forever the crown of those " who turn many to
righteousness." Well may it be the ambition of every Christian minister
to die, like him, on the field of battle, flushed with conquest, girded with
heavenly armour, wielding the sword of the Spirit, and leaving it recorded
over his grave, that his last work on earth was preaching the Gospel of
the kingdom to perishing men.
The writings of Dr. Carson are many, though not voluminous. A list
of them will be found at the end of this volume. It may be sufficient for
us to commend to particular attention his " Principles of Biblical Inter-
pretation ;" his work on "Divine Providence ;" his "Knowledge of
Jesus the most excellent of the Sciences ;" and the accompanying work
on "Baptism.'''' These are not local or ephemeral productions; but are
calculated for any latitude, and destined to live throughout all time.
He was peculiarly happy in his family. His wife was truly a com-
panion and helper, cheering him on in his toils, sustaining him in his
trials, and taking upon herself the entire management of his domestic
concerns. She was also useful to him in his studies, by finding the quo-
tations he required, and reading them while he wrote. She has gone to
the world of spirits a little before him. He was exceedingly careful to
MEMOIR OF DR. CARSON. xlvii
train up his children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. He con-
ducted their education himself, and experienced, in their subsequent cha-
racter, the literal fulfilment of the divine promise, that those who- have
been early instructed in the fear of God, will not, in after years, depart
from it. His was a happiness that falls to the lot of few parents. He
lived to see all his children, thirteen in number, converted to God, and
openly professing their faith in Christ, by following him into the baptis-
mal grave. He was also called to experience the sorrows of a father, and
the joys of a Christian, in the happy death of some of them. His son,
Dr. Carson of Coleraine, died of brain fever, just as he Avas about to be
ordained to the pastoral office, and only two weeks after he had written a
memoir of his two sisters, who were removed within a short time of each
other, by consumption. They departed in the triumphs of faith. One
of them, when expiring, said, " Father, grieve not for me. I am only
going before." It was even so ! Father, mother, son, daughters, have
now united their hallelujahs before the throne of God and the Lamb. For
such mercy bestowed upon fallen humanity, let God have all the praise.
ON BAPTISM.
CHAPTER I.
EXAMINATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF ARCHBISHOP WHATELEY ON THE
SUBJECT OF THE BURDEN OF PROOF, WITH A VIEW TO ITS BEARING
ON INFANT BAPTISM, EPISCOPACY, AND RELIGIOUS RITES.
I entirely agree with the present distinguished Archbishop of Dublin,
that, in the discussion of any question, it is of immense importance to
ascertain with precision on which side lies the necessity of proof. But
I utterly disagree with his Grace, in his doctrine on this subject. I
shall, therefore, as the question of infant baptism is concerned in the
decision, devote a few pages to the examination of what has been
advanced by this learned writer.
" It is a point of great importance," says the Archbishop, " to decide
in each case, at the outset, in your own mind, and clearly point out to
the hearer, as occasion may serve, on which side the presumption lies,
and to which belongs the [onus probandi] burden of proof. For though
it may often be expedient to bring forward more proofs than can fairly
be demanded of you, it is always desirable, when this is the case, that it
should be known, and that the strength of the cause should be estimated
accordingly." This passage expresses the substance of what I have
often advanced, and what I have always practised. Controversy cannot
be skilfully conducted without a perfect acquaintance with the laws
which regulate this matter. But in what follows this quotation, I differ
from his Grace in almost every step. " According to the most correct
use of the term," says the author, " a presumption in favour of any sup-
position means, not (as has sometimes been erroneously imagined,) a pre-
ponderance of probability in its favour, but such a pre-occupation of the
ground as implies that it must stand good till some sufficient reason is
adduced against it ; in short, that the burden of proof lies on the side
of him who would dispute it."
Now I do not think that this account of the most correct use of the
word presumption, in the phrase to which he refers, is at all a just one.
2 THE BURDEN OF PROOF.
And he has given no examples from use to justify what he approves, or
to condemn what he censures. Mere assertion is no proof; and nothing
but instances from the language can have a right to a hearing on this
question. In opposition to his Grace, I contend that the phrase " a pre-
sumption in favour of any supposition," always implies that there is
something which renders such supposition probable, previously to the
examination of the proof, or independently of it. In proof of this, I
might allege innumerable examples. " If one opinion is universally pre-
valent," says Zimmerman on Solitude, " it amounts to a presumption
that no one has a sentiment of his own." Does this imply no degree
of antecedent probability 1
Dr. Johnson assigns as the strict meaning of this word, " an argument
strong, but not demonstrative, — a strong probability." As an example he
quotes the following passage from Hooker : " The error and unsufficience
of their arguments doth make it, on the contrary, a strong presumption,
that God hath not moved their hearts to think such things as he hath
not enabled them to prove." Here the word imports probability.
I may here observe, incidentally, with respect to the strict meaning
assigned to this word by Dr. Johnson, that it is an instance of what I have
asserted with respect to the caution necessary in taking secondary
meanings from lexicons and dictionaries. This greatest of lexicographers
alleges the passage from Hooker as using the word presumption for a
strong probability. But the idea of strength is not in the word presump-
tion; the epithet strong is added to it, — " a strong presumption."
But where does this writer find any passages in which the word
presumption signifies pre-occupation of the ground ? I can think of none
either in vulgar or in correct use. I appeal to the universal practice of
the language. When we say that there is " a presumption in favour of
any supposition," we always mean that there is something which makes
it probable antecedently to the consideration of the direct conclusion, —
never that it has such a pre-occupation of the ground, as casts the bur-
den of proof on the side of him who would dispute it.
With respect to the burden of proof , I shall submit the following
observations :
First, — If the burden of proof lies on one side of every question, it is
self-evident that there must be a self-evident principle to determine, in
every case, on which side it lies. It is often said, that controversy has no
end ; but if there is not in every case a self-evident principle to deter-
mine on which side lies the burden of proof , controversy could have
neither beginning nor end. Discretionary laws can have no place,
because they have no authority.
Second, — Is it self-evident that pre-occupation, which may be acci-
dental, necessarily casts the burden of proof on the other side? It is
not self-evident. It is a mere arbitrary figment, totally destitute of self-
evident authority.
Third, — It is self-evident that pre-occupation of ground does not cast
the burden of proof on the opposite side, for this might establish error
rather than truth.
Fourth, — If proof is a burden, it is still more clearly self-evident that
THE BURDEN OF PROOF. 3
there must be a self-evident principle, in all cases, to determine the
bearing of this burden. Nothing can be more absurd, than to suppose
that a pre-occupation, implying no probability, could confer such a
prerogative.
Fifth, — Even the highest antecedent probability affects not the burden
of proof .
Sixth, — It is self-evident that in every question the burden of proof
lies on the side of the affirmative. An affirmation is of no authority
without proof. It is as if it had not been affirmed. He who denies has
nothing to do till proof is advanced on the other side. Can he refute
evidence till it is advanced ? Does not his Grace himself not only admit
but assert this when, in his censure of those who do not avail themselves
of the privilege of casting the burden of proof on the opposite side,
declares that in such a case there is " absolutely nothing in the other
scale 1" If, then, there is absolutely nothing in the opposite scale, can
it be necessary to fill the other scale to outweigh nothing ?
This may be brought to the most decisive test. Let the combatants
disagree as to the side on which lies the burden of proof, and both per-
versely refuse to commence the encounter ; the person who affirms, in
every instance, loses his cause. If he submits no arguments in proof,
there is no evidence of its truth, and it cannot rationally be received.
The negative, without speaking a word, has all it needs : if nothing is
alleged in proof, there can be no necessity to disprove. This law of
controversy has always appeared to me perfectly self-evident ; and it is one
of great importance. For nothing can be more true than what is asserted
by the Archbishop, on the importance of knowing and respecting the law
with respect to the burden of proof. When a man engages to prove, in
a case in which proof lies on his antagonist, he always injures his cause,
and in some cases he may bring it unjustly into suspicion, or even
destroy it. For sometimes the negative may be capable of no other
proof, than that the affirmative is not proved ; and this is perfectly
sufficient.
The burden of proof must necessarily lie on the side that needs the
proof. This, surely, is the side that cannot subsist without an exhibition
of its evidence. If one side remains safe as long as the other proves
nothing, it cannot be necessary for that side to undertake proof. For
if neither attempts proof, the negative is proved. If I assert a doctrine,
I must prove it ; for until it is proved it can have no claim to reception.
Strictly speaking, it exists only on its proof, and a mere affirmation of
it is only an existence on affirmation. If I obstinately refuse proof, I
leave my doctrine without foundation, and a simple denial of it is suffi-
cient. No man can be called on to disprove that which alleges no proof.
What is disproof, but the refutation of proof? And what has no proof
needs no refutation.
It must be observed, that though the burden of proof always lies on
him who holds the affirmative, yet when he has alleged his proof, the
objector is bound to proof. That is, the objection must be proved before
it can be admitted against the evidence. An objection can have no
force till it is proved. In fact, till it is proved it does not properly
4 THE BURDEN OP PROOF.
exist as an objection. He who objects, must affirm something to be
inconsistent with that to which he objects. If he refuses to prove, his
objection ceases to exist. It is perfectly the same thing as if he did not
object. If a man must prove his doctrine, an objector must prove his
objection. Every man must bear his own burden. He who affirms
must bear the burden of proving his affirmation : he who objects must
bear the burden of proving his objection. This is a rational, clear, and
self-evident law. Indeed, the very phrase, burden of proof , or if the Latin
is more edifying, the onus probandi, necessarily refers to proof, and not
to refutation. It is absurd to suppose that the burden of proof should
lie on him whose only business is to disprove. The burden of proof, as
to different things, lies on both sides of any question. The holder of the
doctrine is bound to submit the evidence on which his doctrine is
founded : the objector to the doctrine must prove anything that he
alleges as an objection. Every man must prove that which his cause
requires. If I do not prove my doctrine, it falls : if my opponent does
not prove his objections, they fall. Here each of us must affirm, and
each must prove what belongs to himself, but neither of us is to prove
that which belongs to the other. How different is this law from the
erroneous principle employed by this great logician, to regulate the
matter in question. I proceed not a step but with the torch of self-
evidence in my hand !
My view of this subject is, I find, similar to that taken by the learned
Lord Chancellor King, in the following passage from his " Enquiry into
the Constitution, Discipline, Unity, and Worship of the Primitive
Church," p. 41. Part II. 1691 :
" Now this being a negative in matter of fact, the bare assertion of it
is sufficient proof, except its affirmative can be evinced. Suppose it was
disputed whether ever St. Paul writ an epistle to the church of Rome,
the bare negation thereof would be proof enough that he did not, except
it could be clearly evidenced on the contrary that he did. So unless
it can be proved that the ancients had fixed liturgies and prayer-books,
we may very rationally conclude in the negative, that they had none
at all."
I will admit the law which I here lay down, to be equally binding
in all inquiries after truth. When I contend with the Archbishop, I am
bound to proof: my opponent has nothing to do but to refute my proof.
He is bound to prove all his objections ; and a merely possible solution
of a difficulty is sufficient to refute the objection. So also with respect
to every doctrine, and every institution that pretends authority from the
word of God. There is another observation of great importance on
this subject. The procedure is the same with respect to every indivi-
dual, were there no one in the world to dispute with him. I believe it
is very generally supposed that a man may safely retain such institu-
tions as he believes to have the privilege of casting the burden of proof
on the side of those who dispute them, till he is forced by his opponents.
This is a monstrous mistake. Were there no one to dispute with us
about any of our doctrines or ordinances, we are equally bound to the
proof of what we receive. And in considering objections, we are to
THE BURDEN OF PROOF. 5
admit none that are not proved. We are fairly to act the part of both
parties. In this way only can we legitimately expect to arrive at truth.
The Archbishop refers to the procedure at law for a confirmation of
his doctrine. " Thus," says he, " it is a well known principle of the law,
that every man (including a prisoner brought up for trial,) is to be pre-
sumed innocent till his guilt is established. This does not, of course,
mean that we are to take for granted he is innocent; for if that were the
case, he would be entitled to immediate liberation : nor does it mean that
it is antecedently more likely than not that he is innocent."
Upon this I observe; First, though his Grace is the first logician of the
age, he here confounds two distinct meanings of the word in question,
and considers them as one. When it is said that a prisoner is to be
presumed innocent till he is proved guilty, the word presumed signifies
supposed, considered, treated in laic: that is, he is not to be legally
judged as guilty, till his guilt is established. In fact, neither guilt nor
innocence is properly presumed. If innocence is presumed, it must be
on account of something that makes guilt unlikely : if guilt is presumed,
it must be from something that makes guilt more likely than innocence.
The law anticipates nothing as to his guilt or innocence; it pronounces
no judgment till it hears the proof.
But the word presumption in the phrase, " a presumption in favor of
any supposition," has a very different meaning, both in common use,
and according to his Grace's definition of it. Accordingly, while the
prisoner is to be legally considered innocent, there may be the strongest
presumption that he is guilty. He cannot, then, in the same sense, be
presumed both innocent and guilty. Besides, the prisoner's being le-
gally considered as innocent, till he is proved guilty, is never designated
as " a presumption in favor of the innocence of the prisoner." There
is not, then, even a legal use of the phrase, in his Grace's sense. In
any case in which it is said that there is " a presumption in favor of the
prisoner," it will be understood by both learned and unlearned, both by
the court and by the crowd, that there is something that renders inno-
cence probable.
Second, — His Grace here confounds a law regulating those who judge
in civil matters for others, with a law that respects every individual in
regulating himself, as to his views of divine things. A jury, whatever
may be their opinion, are not to find a man guilty, but on evidence sub-
mitted in court; but the prisoner himself is not to form his judgment
by this standard.
Third, — The prisoner is to be legally considered innocent, till he is
proved guilty, but this is not from a pre-occupation of the ground.
There is nothing here that can be like pre-occupation.
Fourth, — The treatment of the prisoner is grounded on self-evident
truths. If he did not commit the crime, he is actually innocent of it ;
and if it is not proved that he committed it, he is legally innocent of it.
If there is no proof of guilt, why should he be accounted guilty? Here
the burden of proof is regulated by the same self-evident principle. The
accuser must affirm and prove his affirmation. If he refuses, the charge
falls. It is the accuser who needs the proof. The want of proof of
6 THE BURDEN OF PROOF.
guilt, is legal proof of innocence. If there is no affirmation of guilt,
there is no pretence for trial : if the affirmation of guilt is not proved,
there can be no legal conviction. All this is in perfect harmony with
my doctrine.
The author next gives an example from possession as to property.
" Thus again," says he, " there is a presumption in favor of the right
of any individuals or bodies corporate to the property of which they are
in actual possession. This does not mean that they are, or are not,
likely to be the rightful owners; but merely that no man is to be dis-
turbed in his possessions till some claim against him shall be established."
On this I observe, First, — It is true that the burden of proof lies on
him who disputes the right of the present possessor ; but it is not true
that this is called a "presumption in his favor." It is true, also, gen-
erally speaking, that there is a presumption in favor of the possessor ;
but the sense in which this assertion will be generally admitted, is not
the sense in which it is defined by the writer, but the sense which he
disclaims. It will universally be understood to mean some degree of
probability that the possessor is the rightful owner of the property. It
is never employed to designate merely that the burden of proof lies on
the side of him who disputes the right of the possessor.
Second, — The principle on which the law proving possession as to
property, must undoubtedly be founded on an opinion of previous pro-
bability, otherwise it would be most unjust and absurd.
Third, — There is actually an antecedent probability on the side of
possession as to property. There are a million of cases against one, in
which the possessor is the legal owner. The law, then, is founded on
self-evident truth. There is the soundest reason directing the proce-
dure of the law in this instance.
Fourth, — To put the proof on the possessor would unhinge property,
and be most evidently unjust. Many rightful possessors might not be
able to give any other evidence of their right than possession. But with
respect to religious doctrines and institutions, there is no antecedent
probability that those in existence at any time are actually in Scripture.
The vast majority of religious rites used under the Christian name are
the mere invention of men ; and not a single institution of the Lord Jesus,
as it is recorded in the New Testament, has been left unchanged ; and
it is no injustice to put each of them to the proof, because, if they are
in Scripture, proof is at all times accessible. There is no similarity
between religious ordinances and property. As to a man's right to re-
tain his faith and practice, it not only continues till his doctrine and
rites are disproved by Scripture, but equally after this as before it. He
is to be left in the undisturbed possession of his religion after the clear-
est demonstration of its falsehood and its absurdity.
Fifth, — The civil law actually establishes the procedure as to posses-
sion in property : the Scriptures nowhere recognise the claims of posses-
sion as to doctrines or institutions.
His Grace, after some very just and appropriate observations on the
importance of deciding on which side lies the burden of proof, and hav-
ing illustrated them with suitable examples, speaks of him who neglects
THE BURDEN OF PROOF. 7
it as leaving out " one, perhaps, of his strongest arguments.'1 Now how
does this consist with the assertion, that the presumption referred to im-
plies not a previous probability 1 Can anything be an argument which
has no evidence ? If there is no evidence in this presumption, what
gives it so much weight?
" The following," says the author, "are a few of the cases in which it
is important, though very easy, to point out where the presumption lies.
" There is a presumption in favour of any existing institution. Many
of these (we will suppose the majority) may be susceptible of alteration
for the better ; but still the ' burden of proof lies with him who propo-
ses an alteration ; simply on the ground that, since a change is not a
good in itself, he who demands a change should show cause for it."
With respect to civil institutions, there is, in the common sense of the
term, a presumption that they were agreeable to the wisdom of the le-
gislature when they were enacted. There can be no reason to alter them,
except they can be improved. But even with respect to a civil law, the
moment that the legislature consents to bring it into discussion, it must
prove its utility or perish : proof of this lies on its friends. It is self-
evident that the advocates of a law must show the arguments that sup-
port it. If these are refuted, it perishes without further assault. If it
is a useless law, why should it be law?
But with respect to existing religious institutions, there is no pre-
sumption in their favour, in any sense of the term. Their present exist-
ence is a presumption that they were agreeable to the wisdom of the
institutor, but not that they are of Divine origin. He who holds them
must prove them. He who assails them has only to refute what is al-
leged from Scripture in their support. The question is not whether the
institution is useful or injurious, but whether it is founded in Scripture.
Had an institution existed from the time of Noah, it has not the small-
est authority from its age. It must prove its origin to be from God.
" To the law and to the testimony : if they speak not according to this
word, it is because there is no light in them."
"Every book again, as well as person," says the author, "ought to be
presumed harmless (and, consequently, the copyright protected by our
courts,) till something is proved against it. It is a hardship to require
a man to prove, either of his book or of his private life, that there is no
ground for any accusation ; or else to be denied the protection of his
country. The burden of proof in each case, lies fairly on the accuser."
" The burden of proof, in the cases referred to, certainly rests justly,
as his Grace determines ; but not from a presumption of innocence, nor
from a pre-occupation of the ground, but from self-evident truth. No-
thing could be more self-evidently unjust than to oblige a man to prove
his own innocence. He might be innocent, yet quite unable to prove
it. What other proof could he justly be called on to give of his inno-
cence of a crime, but that there is no evidence he did it ? In some
cases he is able to do more, as when he proves an alibi; but more is
not necessary. If he is not proved guilty, he is innocent of course.
His accuser, then, must affirm guilt, and prove it.
And how could he prove that his book is innocent, but by denying
8 THE BURDEN OF PROOF.
that it is guilty, and challenging his opponent to proof? Instead of
going over every sentence, and showing that it is innocent, he challenges
his adversary to prove gudt in any sentence. If all this proceeds on the
foundation of self-evident truth, why lodge it on the slippery ground
of presumption of innocence, and pre-occupation ? It is an abuse of
terms.
" There is a presumption," says his Grace, " against every thingpara-
doxical, i. e., contrary to the prevailing opinion: it may be true; but
the burden of proof lies with him who maintains it ; since men are not to
be expected to abandon the prevailing belief till some reason is shown."
The burden of proof lies indeed with him who holds anything contrary
to the prevailing opinion; but not more so than with him who holds
what is in accordance with the prevailing opinion. Every opinion is to be
supported by the holders of it, with the arguments on which it rests ;
and the business of him who rejects it is to disprove these arguments.
If a man is not to be expected to abandon the prevailing belief till some
reason is shown, neither is he rationally to be expected to adopt or re-
tain the prevailing belief till he has a reason that convinces himself,
though he is not bound to convince others. As to the burden of proof,
there is not the slightest difference between the wildest singularity and
the most prevailing faith. Every thing that claims belief must submit
its evidence, else it cannot be rationally received. Every thing believed
must rest on evidence, else it cannot be rationally retained. The bur-
den of proof lies necessarily on the side of the opinion believed : the
burden of disproof, or of showing that the arguments alleged in proof
do not prove, lies on the other side. Each side has its own peculiar proof.
It is not only a fantastic, but an absurd and pernicious principle, that
relieves the prevailing faith of the burden of proof. If it is the prevail-
ing opinion that the Man of the Moon has a beard down to his knees,
am I obliged to make an expedition to that planet to determine the
question by actual measurement ? Proof lies on the opinion, not on its
opposers. Besides, the very fact that his Grace gives a reason why men
should not be expected to abandon the prevailing belief till some reason
is shown, destroys his doctrine : for, if he gives a reason, then he rests
not on a mere pre-occupation without evidence.
Again, if mere pre-occupation determines the burden of proof, then
the holder of the most singular opinion should not give it up till some
reason is shown ; that is, he may cast the burden of proof on the side of
the prevailing opinion, for the singular opinion has pre-occupation in
regard to him.
Still further, if the prevailing opinion enjoys this prerogative, it will,
in many cases, be a contest which is the prevailing opinion. The doc-
trine of his Grace, on the burden of proof, is perfectly absurd.
I have another observation. His Grace says : "There is a presump-
tion against every thing paradoxical." Now I ask every reader, what is
the sense that the English language naturally assigns to the word pre-
sumption in this sentence? Is it not a degree of antecedent probability ?
But this is not his Grace's meaning. He means merely that the burden
of proof lies with him who holds the paradox, without expressing any
THE BURDEN OF PROOF. 9
opinion of probability. If my observation is just, his Grace has unne-
cessarily chosen to express himself in phraseology that is not English in
the sense in which he uses it. The expression is paradoxical.
If it were not foreign to the present controversy, I would dispute his
Grace's application of the word paradoxical. He says, " Correct use is
in favour of the etymological sense. It is my opinion, that correct
English never uses the word for what is merely contrary to the prevail-
ing belief. Indeed in this respect there is no difference between vulgar
and classical usage. The word is never used, either by scholars or the
exact, in the sense in which it is explained by this writer. In its best
sense, it always implies something at first sight incredible, or apparently
false, or contradictory, — never simply that a thing is contrary to the
prevailing belief. It is said, that his Grace has an opinion on the
sabbath, contrary to the prevailing belief; but I should consider it calum-
nious, to assert that he holds a paradoxical opinion with regard to the
sabbath. The most singular opinions are not paradoxical, simply from
their singularity; I know, indeed, that one of the meanings assigned to
this word by Dr. Johnson, coincides with that given by his Grace ; but
he has given no example for proof; and he gives the others which this
writer denies. Paradox, Dr. Johnson explains as " a tenet contrary to
received opinion ; an assertion contrary to appearance ; a position in
appearance absurd." From correct use, he exemplifies all but the first :
that he does not exemplify, and I cannot think of an example in the
English language. It is given merely on the authority of etymology,
which is no authority at all. Mere contrariety to the prevailing opinion,
is not a paradox in the sense of the English language. This is another
proof of the necessity of caution in using the authority of lexicons. If
Dr. Johnson is guilty of such an inaccuracy in the account of the mean-
ing of an English word, what may we not fear from lexicographers in
dead or foreign languages? Nothing but examples from a language can
be ultimate proof of the meaning of words. The authority of lexico-
graphers and critics is only secondary.
"Accordingly," says his Grace, " there was a presumption against
the Gospel in its first announcement." In the English sense of the term,
there was no presumption against the Gospel on its first announcement.
But I admit that proof lay on that side. This, however, is not from any
pre-occupation of ground on the other side; it was on the common, self-
evident principle, that every doctrine or opinion must show its proof,
else it must cease to have a rational existence. He who denies it has
nothing to do but refute what is alleged in its favour. This holds uni-
versally. Indeed, his Grace himself rests his assertion on the nature of
the thing, and the self-evidence of the case, not on pre-occupation. " A
Jewish peasant," says he, " claimed to be the promised Deliverer, in whom
all the nations of the earth were to be blessed. The burden of proof
lay with Him. No one could be fairly called on to admit his preten-
sions till He showed cause for believing in Him." Here the author does
not rest on the authority of an arbitrary principle, but gives a reason for
his assertion. And if it is true, that " no one could be fairly called on to
admit his pretensions till He showed cause for believing on him," it is on
2
10 THE BURDEN OF PROOF.
the same ground, then, that no one can be fairly called on to believe
anything till evidence is presented.
" Noiv," continues the writer, "the case is reversed. Christianity
exists : and those who deny the Divine origin attributed to it, are bound
to show some reasons for assigning to it a human origin."
This indeed is a most chimerical principle. The same doctrine is at
one time bound to proof, at another it has the privilege of casting the
burden of proof on the other side ; from the mere circumstance of exis-
tence. Nothing can be more absurd. If at first it is bound to proof,
but as soon as it is received, it can cast the burden of proof on the other
side, its reception must be evidence of its truth, or the ground of its
reception is irrational and insufficient. Now the presumption for which
his Grace contends, is not of the nature of evidence at all.
This doctrine is utterly without foundation. Christianity is as much
bound to proof this day, as it was the first day of its publication. Its
opponents are not " bound to show some reasons for assigning to it a human
origin." If they refute the arguments on which Christianity rests, they
have done their business. The establishment of Christianity considered
in connexion with its nature and means of propagation, is indeed evi-
dence of its truth, but no reason to cast the burden of proof on its enemies.
On what does such an arbitrary principle rest ? Do the Scriptures
teach that as soon as any doctrine or position is established, or received,
proof lies on the side of those who dispute it? No such thing is pre-
tended. Is it a self-evident truth? Instead of this, the author himself
denies this presumption to be even a previous probability. Every ulti-
mate reason must be self-evident. But here we have an ultimate reason
that has not even the nature of evidence.
His Grace rests on the simple existence of Christianity. But did not
Christianity exist from the first day of its reception by the first individual
who received it? According to this doctrine, then, with respect to all
who from the first moment received it, proof lay on the other side. Be-
sides, with respect to infidels and all who have not received Christianity,
proof must still lie on it. They must not give up their old systems till
proof is submitted. There is nothing but concessions on this principle
of settling the burden of proof. Christianity on the ground of its existence
rests the burden of proof on those who dispute it ; yet all who dispute it
have the same reason to cast the burden of proof upon it. Their belief
had, with respect to themselves, a previous existence. If each has a
right to cast the burden of proof upon the other, they never can contend.
The author himself forsakes his own principle, and in the following
passage, gives a reason why the burden of proof should now lie on the
opposers of Christianity. " The burden of proof," says he, " now lies
plainly on him who rejects the Gospel ; which, if it were not established
by miracles, demands an explanation of the greater miracle, its having
been established in defiance of all opposition, by human contrivance."
Here instead of relying on simple existence, he relies on miraculous
propagation, in defiance of all opposition. This indeed is an argument
in proof of the truth of Christianity — not a reason to relieve it from the
burden of proof.
THE BURDEN OF PROOF. 11
" The burden of proof, again," says the Archbishop, " lay on the
authors of the Reformation : they were bound to show cause for every
change they advocated ; and they admitted the fairness of this requisi-
tion, and accepted the challenge. But they were not bound to show
cause for retaining what they left unaltered. The presumption was, in
these points, on their side ; and they had only to reply to objections.
This important distinction is often lost sight of, by those who look at the
' doctrines, &c, of the Church of England as constituted at the Reform-
ation,' in the mass, without distinguishing the altered from the unaltered
parts. The framers of the Articles kept this in mind in their expression
respecting infant baptism, that it ought by all means to be retained.
They did not introduce the practice, but left it as they found it; con-
sidering the burden to lie on those who denied its existence in the
primitive church, to show when it did arise."
The burden of proof did not lie on the Reformers. They who held
the established doctrine and rites at that time, were bound to show that
they are the doctrines and rites of the New Testament. The business
of the Reformers was to refute any arguments from Scripture alleged in
support by their opponents. What is the thing controverted ? Is it not
whether certain doctrines and rites are instituted in Scripture 1 If this
protestant Archbishop receive the common protestant maxim, the Bible,
the ichole Bible, and nothing but the Bible, he cannot controvert this.
And if this is the controversy, is it not necessarily the business of those
who hold them to be in Scripture, to produce the proof that they are in
Scripture ? The business of the other is to refute the alleged evidence.
This is a self-evident truth. If any doctrine, or rite, declines to show
its proof, from the admitted standard, it necessarily falls to the ground
for want of proof. To deny it is to disprove it. If it will not bear the
burden of proof, it is unproved. The opposers of it have nothing to do.
They cannot refute proof that is not submitted to them. If pre-occupa-
tion is rested on, that pre-occupation must either be evidence, or the
thing is believed without evidence. But pre-occupation is not proof,
and the Archbishop himself does not make it even probability.
Besides, as soon as the Reformers had received their new system, that
system, with respect to themselves, had pre-occupation. It was in pos-
session, and according to the Archbishop's doctrine, they had a right to
cast the burden of proof on the other side. There is a confusion in the
Archbishop's doctrine, which I am surprised to find in the views of so
great a logician. Pre-occupation he at one time applies with reference
to the date of the doctrine or institution ; at another with reference to
the reception of the doctrine or rite by individuals. He grants the
privilege of pre-occupation to every man with respect to his own system,
or the system of his party. There is nothing akin in these two pre-
occupations.
The distinction on which the Archbishop rests all the rites retained
by the Reformation, is indeed a very important one, but it is a distinction
that has not the shadow of a support either in Scripture or in self-evident
truth. If a man is bound to show cause for every change, he is equally
bound to do so, with respect to every thing which he retains. He must
12 THE BURDEN OF PROOF.
submit evidence for every thing which he holds, or be charged with the
absurdity of believing without evidence. If the Reformers renounced
extreme unction because it was not instituted in Scripture, why did they
retain infant baptism, or any other human invention?
How could the Reformers disprove what they rejected ? Was it not
by proving that the rejected doctrines and rites were not taught in
Scripture ? And was not this as easily to be done with respect to many
things which they retained, as it was with respect to those which they
rejected ? And how was this to be done with respect to either, but by
denying that they are in Scripture, and challenging their opponents to
proof? Were they to quote the whole Scriptures, sentence by sentence,
showing as they proceeded that the rejected doctrines and rites were
not there ? This absurdity is imported in the doctrine that proof lay
with the Reformers. It is a truth clear as the light of the sun, that, in
every instance, proof lies with the affirmative, or with the holders of the
doctrine or rite.
But even if proof of the rites and institutions retained by the Reform-
ers, lay with their opponents, what is it they have to prove ? Is it not
merely that the things objected to, are not instituted in Scripture ? But
the Archbishop unjustly calls for the proof of a very different thing, a
thing that in no case can be demanded. He demands of the opponents
of the rejected rite, or institution, " to show when it did arise." I care
not when it arose. It is perfectly sufficient for my cause, that it is not
in Scripture. Let its friends trace its genealogy. This demand is
arbitrary, unscriptural, irrational. You might as well demand the author
of the rite as the time of the introduction of the rite. Do the Scriptures
teach that every rite in existence is to be continued, unless the time of
its introduction shall be ascertained ? Is it a self-evident truth that every
thing ought to be retained as divine, which cannot be traced to its origin ?
Here is a forged bank note that has passed over half the kingdom, im-
posing on the best judges, but is at last rejected by the bank ; will the
Archbishop think himself bound to receive it in payment, unless he can
trace it to its origin? This bank note has pre-occupation, yet I will
engage that his Grace will shift the burden of proof from his own shoul-
ders. His demand is not founded on any self-evident principle of evi-
dence, but has been first invented for the very purpose of giving a
sanction to the circulation of human forgeries in the kingdom of God.
" The case of Episcopacy," says his Grace, " is exactly parallel ; but
Hooker seems to have overlooked this advantage: he sets himself to
prove the apostolic origin of the institution, as if his task was to intro-
duce it. Whatever force there may be in arguments so adduced, it is
plain they must have far more force if the important presumption be kept
in view, that the institution had notoriously existed many ages, and that
consequently, even if there had been no direct evidence of its being
coeval with Christianity, it might fairly be at least supposed to be so,
till some other period should be pointed out at which it had been intro-
duced as an innovation."
The case of episcopacy is, indeed, exactly parallel with that of infant
baptism ; and equally groundless. Hooker showed his judgment in
THE BURDEN OF PROOF. 13
declining a mode of defence which is so completely irrational. Epis-
copacy, and every doctrine and institution, must submit their proof, or
be charged as being without proof. To prove an existing institution
o be scriptural, and to introduce, as scriptural, one which has been
neglected, demand the same process. The question to be discussed is,
whether the institution is in Scripture, not whether it is in practice
among any denomination. What is the ground on which this distinc-
tion rests? Do the Scriptures teach, that an institution in practical
existence, has a pre-occupation that entitles it to be received as Divine,
until it is convicted of human origin? Is it a self-evident truth? No
such thing : it is a figment forged to sanction the doctrines and tradi-
tions of men.
But even if proof did lie on the opposer of episcopacy, what is he to
prove ? Surely nothing more than that it is not in Scripture. Yet the
Archbishop puts him to another proof. He obliges him to point out a
period at which it arose as an innovation. I resist such a demand, as
unscriptural, irrational, and without countenance from self-evident truth.
No man, in order to disprove error, is obliged to hunt after its origin.
If I knew the pedigree and the birth of episcopacy to a moment, I would
not make use of my knowledge, without a caution that the thing is not
necessary to my case.
What is presumption in the explained sense of his Grace ? It is a
pre-occupation of the ground, that does not take the thing for granted,
or mean that it is more likely than not. But what is this presumption
about episcopacy ? It is a presumption by which " it might fairly, at
least, be supposed to be so, till," &c. Does not this take the thing for
granted, till contrary proof is submitted ?
In the foregoing extract it is assumed that if episcopacy existed at a
certain period, it must be of Divine origin. This I deny. Were I
writing against episcopacy, I would trample on the evidence with regard
to its date. I care not if it was coeval with Adam, if it is not appointed
in the Scriptures. It is also insinuated that there is some degree of
direct evidence for episcopacy. Does this mean Scripture evidence ?
Will the very learned and liberal Archbishop of Dublin venture to
assert, that the Scriptures make the bishop an officer superior to the
presbyter ?
It is here supposed that the fact that episcopacy notoriously existed
many ages, is ground to believe that it is coeval with Christianity, unless
the period can be pointed at which it had been introduced. The writer
is universally acknowledged as the first logician in Europe ; yet this is
not logic. It might be coeval with Christianity, and not be Christian :
it might have existed many ages, and not be coeval with Christianity,
even although the period of its introduction could not be pointed out.
Freemasonry has existed for many ages. Are we to believe the brother-
hood that it is of Divine origin, or that it was instituted by Hiram the
great architect of Solomon, unless we are able to trace its origin ?
" In the case of any doctrines, again," says the writer, "professing to
be essential parts of the Gospel revelation, the fair presumption is, that
we shall find all such distinctly declared in Scripture."
14 THE BURDEN OF PROOF.
Here, it seems, his Grace abandons his defined sense of the word
presumption, and uses it in the sense which he condemns — the common
English sense, importing a degree of probability. I ask every reader
whether this is not the sense in which he understands the words last
quoted. Does he not mean that the thing referred to, is more probable,
or more likely than the contrary 1 It respects not the burden of proof,
nor pre-occupation of the ground ; but the antecedent probability of the
thing asserted. Why is the thing to be presumed 1 Is it not because
of its probability 1
With respect to the assertion itself, while it is not only probable, but
self-evidently true, that every thing revealed by God, will be revealed
with a sufficient degree of clearness, and that every thing is revealed
which he- commands to be believed or practised, yet as to the manner
and degree of clearness of the revelation, there can be no just anticipa-
tion. Here the anticipations of human wisdom have always failed.
How a thing is to be revealed, we learn from the revelation, not from
our own anticipations. It is sufficient if a truth, or duty, is revealed in
any manner. Has the Archbishop a design of protecting, by his pre-
sumption, disbelief of certain doctrines, as not being essential parts of
revelation, because their opponents may allege that they are riot dis-
tinctly declared in Scripture ?
" And again, in respect of commands or prohibitions, or to any point,"
says the author, " delivered by our Lord or his apostles, there is a pre-
sumption that Christians are bound to obey." Why speak of this as a
presumption ? Can anything be more certain than that all the com-
mands and prohibitions delivered by our Lord and his apostles, are to
be obeyed by those who profess subjection to him ?
" If any one," continues the writer, " maintain on the ground of tra-\
dition the necessity of some additional articles of faith (as for instance
that of purgatory) or the propriety of a departure from the New Testa- .
ment precepts (as for instance in the denial of the cup to the laity in
the Eucharist) the burden of proof lies with him."
In such cases, instead of calling for proof, I would assert that the ♦
things supposed are incapable of proof. It is assumed that the things
referred to are not in Scripture ; but are additional articles of faith.
Now, if the Scriptures are the only standard, how can anything not in
the Scriptures, be proved from the Scriptures ? If any man adds tra-
dition to his standard, we have not a common standard, and cannot rea-
son as to the conformity or nonconformity of certain doctrines to our
standard. We must dispute, not about doctrines, but about the standard
of our doctrines. If any one, professing to be guided by the New Testa-
ment, asserts the propriety of a departure from New Testament precepts,
I would not call on him for proof; I would assert that the thing is
absurd. How can a standard teach that it is not a standard 1
" It should be also remarked, under this head," says the author, " that
in any one question the presumption will often be found to lie on differ-
ent sides, in respect of different parties — e. g., In the question between a
member of the Church of England and a Presbyterian, or member of any
other church, on which side does the presumption lie? Evidently, to each,
THE BURDEN OF PROOF. 15
in favour of the religious community to which he at present belongs.
He is not to separate from the church of which he is a member, without
having some sufficient reason to allege."
In the Archbishop's sense of the word presumption, this appears to
me a paradox in the worst sense of the word. It is impossible that two
parties can have previous possession of the same thing. One may have
pre-occupation of one part of the disputed property, and another of an-
other ; but unless they are as clever as St. Dennis, who kissed his own
head, they cannot be both put in possession of the same thing.
And the paradox is obviously founded on a confounding of things
that are different. The presumption of the episcopalian is not the
presumption of him who holds the bishop and the presbyter to be the
same officer. The pre-occupation of the episcopalian, as the Archbishop
formerly stated, is a present occupation preceded by a previous occupa-
tion of notoriously many ages' duration. But here the pre-occupation
respects present possession, that is, to have authority with none but
themselves respectively. In this kind of pre-occupation, the episcopa-
lian is only on a footing with his opponent. And this is a most useless
pre-occupation that equally belongs to all opinions, and is to have influ-
ence only on those who hold them. This cannot affect the burden of
proof. The pre-occupation in which episcopacy glories, is not the pre-
occupation here recognised.
If this is presumption , and if presumption has the privilege of casting
the burden of proof on the other side, then every man has a right to
decline defending his own opinions, and to cast the burden of proof upon
those who dispute them. Can anything be more monstrous?
" It is worth remarking," says the author, " that a presumption may
be rebutted by an opposite presumption, so as to shift the burden of
proof to the other side : e. g., Suppose you had advised the removal of
some existing restriction : you might be, in the first instance, called on
to take the burden of proof, and allege your reasons for the change, on
the ground that there is a presumption against every change. But you
might fairly reply, True, but there is another presumption which rebuts
the former : every restriction is in itself an evil ; and therefore there is
a presumption in favour of its removal, unless it can be shown necessary
for prevention of some greater evil ; I am not bound to allege any
specific inconvenience ; if the restriction is unnecessary , that is reason
enough for its abolition : its defenders therefore are fairly called on to
prove its necessity."
It is true that a presumption may be rebutted by an opposite presump-
tion, if the word is taken in its common English sense. But I cannot
see how this is true according to the sense in which the word is ex-
plained by the Archbishop. If one thing pretends pre-occupation, how
can it be rebutted, as to pre-occupation, but by proving that its preten-
sions to pre-occupation are false 1 If by pre-occupation it has the privilege
of casting the burden of proof on its opponent, how can this burden be
cast upon it, except it is proved not to have the pre-occupation which it
pretended ? One of them only can have pre-occupation, and consequently
that one only can have presumption. Can each of them be before the
16 THE BURDEN OF PROOF.
other? This would be like the seven ladies, who were each of them
handsomer than another.
A change is in itself neither good nor evil ; it is good or evil accord-
ing to the nature of the thing changed : consequently it cannot be a
sound, just principle that " there is a presumption against every change."
A presumption, in the English sense of the word, that lies against a
change, must be founded on the supposition that the thing sought to be
changed, was at first the result of wisdom, or at least of deliberation.
This is the case with respect to all laws. But mere pre-occupation has
not the smallest authority. And though when a legislator calls for the
change of a law, it is implied that he considers it either bad or useless,
yet in all cases the defender of the law is bound to prove the utility or
innocence of the law : his opponents have nothing to do but to disprove
his arguments and show that he has failed to prove its innocence, or its
utility. If they succeed, the law is justly dead.
What does the learned author mean by presumption when he says
that " there is a presumption in favour of the removal of every restric-
tion, unless it can be shown necessary for the prevention of some greater
evil 1" If every restriction is in itself an evil, can certainty be more cer-
tain than that it should be removed, if unnecessary 1 Here presumption
turns out to be self-evidence, and the restriction being unnecessary , is
never enough for its removal. Here presumption is more than proba-
bility, and rests on self-evident truth.
But does not the Archbishop here abandon his own doctrine ? Has
not the restriction pre-occupation ? According to the author, then, the
burden of proof falls on those who dispute it. Yet he puts the burden
of proof on those who defend the restriction, on the ground of self-
evident truth. " Its defenders," he asserts, " are fairly called on to
prove its necessity." If so, pre-occupation has no authority.
The following passage, quoted by the writer from Dr. Hawkins, is
entirely in harmony with my doctrine. " In no other instance perhaps
besides that of religion, do men commit the very illogical mistake of
first canvassing all the objections against any particular system whose
pretensions to truth they would examine, before they consider the direct
arguments in its favour." Now, if the arguments in favour of a doctrine,
or system, are first to be considered, who is it that is obliged to state
these arguments ? Must it not be the person who holds the doctrine or
system ? How can the objector reply to arguments that are not laid
before him ? And it is perfectly the same thing with a man examining
his own system, or doctrine : he must first consider the arguments in
proof, and afterwards the objections : for it is an important truth that
is stated by Dr. Hawkins, that " there may be truth, and truth supported
by irrefragable arguments ; and yet at the same time obnoxious to ob-
jections, numerous, plausible, and by no means easy of solution." I go
farther ; there may be truth liable to objections that to us may be un-
answerable, while the proof is irrefragable.
But the next quotation is not in accordance with this. He adds, " that
sensible men, really desirous of discovering the truth, will perceive that
reason directs them to examine first the arguments in favour of that side
THE BURDEN OF PROOF 17
of the question where the first presumption of truth appears. And the
presumption is manifestly in favour of that religious creed already adopt-
ed by the country." Reason directs to begin the inquiry as to the truth
of any religion, by examining the evidences alleged in its favour, whether
antecedent probability be favourable or unfavourable. But it is monstrous
to suppose that there is a "presumption of truth" in favour of the re-
ligion of a man's country. What relation to truth has the relation of a
man to his country? According to this doctrine there is a presumption
of the truth of every religion in the world. What is the value of that
presumption in favour of any religion, which is equally a presumption
in favour of every other religion ?
Upon the whole, the doctrine of the learned and scientific Archbishop,
on the subject of the burden of proof, is neither scriptural nor philo-
sophical : it is self-evidently false. Presumption is not pre-occupation of
the ground, and pre-occupation decides not the privilege. The burden
of proof cannot be directed by any arbitrary principle, but must be de-
termined by self-evidence from the nature of the theory. The side that
affirms needs the proof; and the side that needs the proof must produce
it. Infant baptism, then, and episcopacy, and all religious rites, must
show their authority in Scripture, or perish with the other human in-
ventions discontinued at the Reformation. " Every plant which my
heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be plucked up."
I will close my observations on his Grace's doctrine, with stating a
presumption. I appeal to every man of candour, is there not a vehe-
ment presumption against the supposition that infant baptism is in Scrip-
ture, when so eminent a scholar as the Archbishop of Dublin labours so
hard to find it a slippery foundation in pre-occupation? Were it in
Scripture, Dr. Whatley is the man who could defend its title against
every opponent.
CHAPTER II.
THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
Meaning of the word bapto — Difference between bapto and baptizo.
Section I.— The word BAPTO, from which is formed BAPTIZO,
signifies primarily, to dip; and, as a secondary meaning obviously de-
rived from the primary, it denotes to dye. Every occurrence of the word
may be reduced to one or other of these acceptations. It has been said,
that it signifies also to wash; but, though this is given by the lexicogra-
phers as one of its meanings, and is admitted by many Baptist writers,
it is not warranted by a single decisive example, either in the Scriptures,
or in the classical authors. It has also been said that it is a generic
word, and, without respect to mode, or inclusive of all modes, denotes
any application of water. So far from this, the idea of water is not at
all in the word. It is as applicable to every fluid as to water. Nay, it is
not confined to liquids, but is applied to every thing that is penetrated.
The substance in which the action of the verb is performed, may be oil,
or wax, or mire, or any other soft matter, as well as water. Except
when it signifies to dye, it denotes mode, and nothing but mode.
Bapto and Baptizo are considered by most writers as perfectly iden-
tical in their signification. On the other hand, there are writers on this
subject, on both sides of the great question, who have assigned a differ-
ence of meaning, which is merely fanciful. Some have alleged, that the
termination zo makes baptizo a diminutive; but utterly without counte-
nance from the practice of the language. Others have erred as far on
the other side, and equally without authority make baptizo a frequentative.
The termination zo has no such effect as either class of these writers sup-
pose; and the history of the word, both in sacred and classical use, justi-
fies no such notion. It is true, indeed, that early church history shows
that Baptism was performed by three immersions; but it is equally true,
that this is neither scriptural, nor indicated by the termination of the
verb. Even had Christ appointed trine immersion, the frequency could
not have been expressed by this word. We should recollect that the
word was not formed for this religious ordinance ; but, being taken from
the language, must be used in the common sense. The termination zo
does not make a frequentative according to the practice of the language
in other words; and the verb baptizo is not used as a frequentative by
18
THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 19
Greek writers. It could not become such, then, in an ordinance of
Christ. When Tertullian translates it by mergitare, he might wish to
countenance the trine immersion ; but it is strange that he should be
followed by Vossius and Stephens. It is strange, also, to find some Bap-
tists still speaking of baptizo as a frequentative verb, since they cannot
suppose that it is such in the ordinance of baptism. It is a sufficient
induction from the actual history of a language, and not speculations
from theory, that can settle a question of this kind.
The learned Dr. Gale, in his Reflections on Mr. Wall's History of
Infant Baptism, after giving us a copious list of quotations, in which
bapto and baptizo are used, says : " I think it is plain, from the instances
already mentioned, that they are exactly the same as to signification."
As far as respects an increase or diminution of the action of the verb, I
perfectly agree with the writer. That the one is more or less than the
other, as to mode or frequency, is a perfectly groundless conceit. Yet
there is a very obvious difference in the use of the words, and a differ-
ence that naturally affects the point at issue. This difference is, bapto
IS NEVER USED TO DENOTE THE ORDINANCE OF BAPTISM, AND BAPTIZO
never signifies to dye. The primitive word bapto has two significa-
tions, the primary to dip, the secondary to dye. But the derivative is
formed to modify the primary only; and in all the Greek language, I
assert that an instance is not to be found in which it has the secondary
meaning of the primitive word. If this assertion is not correct, it will
be easy for learned men to produce an example in contradiction. That
bapto is never applied to the ordinance of baptism, any one can verify,
who is able to look into the passages of the Greek Testament, where the
ordinance is spoken of. Now, if this observation is just, it overturns
all those speculations that explain the word, as applied to baptism, by
an allusion to dyeing; for the primitive word that has this secondary
meaning is not applied to the ordinance; and the derivative word, which
is appointed to express it, has not the secondary signification of dyeing.
Bapto has two meanings; baptizo in the whole history of the Greek
language has but one. It not only signifies to dip or immerse, but it never
has any other meaning. Each of these words has its specific province,
into which the other cannot enter ; while there is a common province in
which either of them may serve. Either of them may signify to dip
generally ; but the primitive cannot specifically express that ordinance to
which the derivative has been appropriated ; and the derivative cannot
signify to dye, which is a part of the province of the primitive. The
difference is precise and important. Most of the confusion of ideas on
both sides of the question, with respect to the definite meaning of the
word baptism, has arisen from overlooking this difference. Writers, in
general, have argued from the one word to the other, as if they perfectly
corresponded in meaning.
To show that derivatives in zo are equivalent to their primitives, Dr.
Gale gives us a number of examples. Now, in every thing essential to
his purpose, this is perfectly true; and in innumerable instances, no
variation may be capable of being traced. Yet I apprehend that such
derivatives were not introduced merely to vary the sound, but that they
20 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
were originally designed to modify the action of the primitive verbs.
The termination zo, when employed to form a derivative, appears to me
to have served some such purpose, as the Hebrew causal form, and to
denote the making of the action of the verb to be performed. Mere
speculation is of no value. The most ingenious theory, not confirmed by
the use of the language, ought to have no authority. To ground any-
thing on conjectures, with respect to a subject that concerns the faith or
obedience of the people of God, would be not only unphilosophical but
impious. But that my observation is just, may be fully verified by
examples. There cannot be the smallest doubt, that the Greeks did
form derivatives on this plan. Could I produce no other instance, the
following from ^Elian's Varia Historia, would be sufficient to establish
my doctrine. It occurs in the anecdote he relates with respect to the
beneficence of Ptolemy Lagides. " They say that Ptolemy, the son of
Lagus, took great delight in enriching his friends. He said that it is
better to enrich others than to be rich," 197.* Here ploateo is to be
rich, and ploutizo, to make rich.
We have another instance in Heraclides, " of whom he provided
many with a supper." Dcipnco is to sup; deipnizo signifies to give a
supper.
Such, then, indubitably was originally the use of derivatives with this
termination, though in many cases they and their primitives may be
interchangeable ; and although in some the distinction cannot at all be
traced.
In this view baptizo would signify originally to make an object dip.
Its use then, would be to apply to the dipping of things too heavy to be
sustained by the dipper. Its use in classical occurrence, I think, will
accord with this. Compared with its primitive, its occurrence in profane
writers is very rare, and it generally applies to objects that are too
heavy to be lifted or borne by the dipper. It applies to ships which are
made to dip by the weight of the lading. As to the general idea of dip-
ping, the primitive and the derivative are interchangeable. The primi-
tive may be used with respect to the largest body that can be immersed ;
but it will not express the modification denoted by the derivative. The
derivative may be applied to the smallest object that is dipped ; for it is
evident, that if we dip an object in any way, we cause it to dip or sink.
I shall illustrate this observation further when examples actually come
before us. In the mean time I observe, that whatever may originally
have been the modification of the termination in question, the difference
in the use of bapto and baptizo is clearly established. To ascertain a
difference, and to account for that difference, are two very different
things. In the former our success cannot be doubted, whatever may be
thought with respect to the latter.
From some instances in the application of this word, Dr. Gale was
induced to suppose that it does not so necessarily express the action of
putting under water, as that the object is in that state. But this is
evidently inconsistent with the essential meaning of the word ; and not at
* See my former edition for the original of all my translations.
THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 21
all demanded by the examples on which he founds it. " The word
baptizo," says he, " perhaps does not so necessarily express the action of
putting under water, as in general a thing being in that condition, no
matter how it comes so, whether it is put into the water, or the water
comes over it." Now, were this observation just, every thing lying
under water might have this literally applied to it. But every one
acquainted with the Greek language must acknowledge that the word has
not literally such an application. In any particular instance when this
word is applied to an object lying under water, but not actually dipped,
the mode essentially denoted by it is as truly expressed as in any other
instance of its occurrence. Indeed, the whole beauty of such expressions
consists in the expression of a mode not really belonging to the thing
expressed. The imagination, for its own gratification, invests the object
with a mode that does not truly belong to it ; and if that mode were not
suggested to the mind, the expression would lose its peculiar beauty.
Common conversation exemplifies this mode of expression every day ;
and mere children understand its import. When a person has been
drenched with rain, he will say that he has got a dipping. Here dipping
does not lose its modal import, but immediately suggests it to the mind,
and intends to suggest it. But were the English language one of the
dead languages, and this expression subjected to learned criticism, it
would be alleged that the word dipping does not denote mode, but wetting,
without reference to mode.
The very example alleged by Dr. Gale is formed on this principle.
It is brought from the works of Aristotle. " The Phenicians who
inhabit Cadiz relate, that, sailing beyond Hercules' Pillars, in four days,
with the wind at east, they came to a land uninhabited, whose coast was
full of sea-weeds, and is not laid under water at ebb ; but when the
tide comes in, it is wholly covered and overwhelmed." Now, though
the water comes over the land, and there is no actual exemplification of
the mode expressed by this word, yet it still expresses that mode ; and
the word has been employed for the very purpose of expressing it. The
peculiar beauty of the expression consists in figuring the object, which is
successively bare and buried under water, as being dipped when it is
covered, and as emerging when it is bare. In the same style we might
say that, at the flood, God immersed the mountains in the waters, though
the waters came over them.
No example can more clearly disprove the notion, that this word
denotes to pour or sprinkle a little water on an object. The thing here
supposed to be baptized was wholly buried under water. The beach
is said to be baptized when the tide comes over it. Can any child, then,
be at a loss to learn from this, that baptism means to lay under water ?
Should we say that God baptized the earth at the flood, we should use
an expression exactly like the above. Who, then, can be at a loss to
know the meaning of the word baptism ?
This example tends to confirm my observation with respect to the
peculiar import of derivatives in zo. This was a large object, that was
not supposed to be taken up and dipped, but to be caused to dip, as it
were by sinking.
22 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
The distinction which I have observed between the use of bapto and
baptizo, will enable us to refute the interpretation of the word baptism
by Mr. Robinson of Cambridge. " The English translators," says he,
" did not translate the word baptize, and they acted wisely ; for there
is no one word in the English language which is an exact counterpart of
the Greek word, as the New Testament uses it, containing the precise
ideas of the evangelists, neither less nor more. The difficulty, or rather
the excellence of the word is, that it contains two ideas, inclusive of
the whole doctrine of baptism. Baptize is a dyer's word, and signifies
to dip, so as to colour. Such as render the word dip, give one true
idea ; but the word stood for two, and one is wanting in this rendering.
This defect is in the German Testament. Matt. iii. 1 : 'In those days
came John cler Tauffer, John the Dipper ;' and the Dutch : ' In those
days came John der Dooper, John the Dipper.' This is the truth, but
it is not the whole truth. The Saxon Testament adds another idea, by
naming the administrator, John le Fullubtere, John the Fuller. The
Icelandic language translates baptism skirn, scouring. These convey two
ideas, cleansing by washing, but neither do these accurately express the
two ideas of the Greek baptize ; for though repentance, in some cases
accompanies baptism, as it does prayer, yet not in every case. Jesus
was baptized in Jordan, but he was not cleansed from any moral or
ceremonial turpitude by it, nor was any repentance mixed with his
baptism. Purification by baptism is an accident ; it may be, it may not
be, — it is not essential to baptism. The word, then, conveys two ideas,
the one literal, dipping, the other figurative, colouring ; a figure, how-
ever, expressive of a real fact, meaning that John, by bathing persons
in the river Jordan, conferred a character, a moral hue, as dyers, by
dipping in a dyeing vat, set a tinct or colour ; John, by baptism, discri-
minating the disciples of Christ from other men, as dyers, by colouring,
distinguish stuffs. Hence John is called, by early Latins, John Tinctor,
the exact Latin of Joannes Baptistes, John the Baptist."
Mr. Robinson was a man of talents and of extensive reading ; but
whatever other accomplishment he might possess, the above specimen
shows that he was no critic. Such a combination of the primary and
secondary meaning of a word, is unphilosophical ; and, I am bold to
say, that in no language was it ever really exemplified. It is a mere
.speculation, and a speculation that no man at all acquainted with the phi-
losophy of language could indulge. Did Mr. Robinson suppose that
baptizo had this double import in common and classical use ? If he did,
he must have paid no attention to the various occurrences of the word ;
for in no instance is his observation verified. Did he suppose that the
word, in its appropriation to the ordinance of baptism, received this new
meaning ? If he did, he supposes what is absurd, and what cannot be
exemplified in any word in the Bible. If words could receive such an
arbitrary appropriation in Scripture, the Book of God would not be a
revelation. Words must be used in Scripture in the sense in which they
are understood by those who speak the language, otherwise the Bible
would be a barbarian both to the learned and to the unlearned. "Baptize,"
he says, " is a dyer's word." Baptize is not a dyer's word. Jiapto, in a
THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 23
secondary sense, signifies to dye ; but baptizo never does. It is strictly
univocal. What a ridiculous thing to suppose that, by immersion in
pure water, Christians received a discriminating hue, like cloth dipped
in the dyer's vat! What mark does it impress? Are we to take the
explanation of the import of an ordinance of Christ from the creations
of genius, rather than from the explicit declaration of the Apostles?
Such a meaning the word in question never has. Such a combination
of primary and secondary meaning no word in any language could
have. Such a meaning has nothing in the ordinance to verify it. It
is infinitely more important to resist such explanations of baptism, even
though their authors should agree with us with respect both to the
mode and subjects of that ordinance, than to combat the opinion of
our brethren who on these points differ from us. It is the truth itself,
and not any ritual ordinance, that our Lord has appointed to be the
bond of union among his people. A disproportionate zeal for baptism
may sometimes lead to danger of seduction from the Gospel, by frater-
nizing with its corrupters, from agreement with them in a favourite
ordinance.
" Not long before the death of Professor Porson," says Dr. Newman,
" I went, in company with a much respected friend, to see that cele-
brated Greek scholar at the London Institution. I was curious to hear
in what manner he read Greek. He very condescendingly, at my re-
quest, took down a Greek Testament, and read, perhaps twenty verses
in one of the gospels, in which the word bapto occurred. I said, • Sir,
you know there is a controversy among Christians respecting the mean-
ing of that word.' He smiled and replied, *- The Baptists have the
advantage of us ! He cited immediately the well-known passage in
Pindar, and one or two of those in the gospels, mentioned in this letter ;
I inquired, whether, in his opinion, baptizo must be considered equal
to bapto, which, he said, was to tinge, as dyers. He replied to this
effect ; that if there be a difference, he should take the former to be
the strongest. He fully assured me, that it signified a total immersion.
This conversation took place August 27, 1807."
I should like to know in what respect this eminent scholar considered
baptizo to be a stronger term to denote immersion, than its primitive
bapto. I wish we had his opinion more in detail on this subject. As
expressive of mode, the derivative cannot go beyond its primitive. As
to totality of immersion, the one is perfectly equivalent to the other.
But, as I observed before, bapto has two senses, and baptizo but one ;
and therefore, in this respect, the word used, with respect to the ordi-
nance of baptism, is stronger in support of immersion, as being univocal.
Perhaps this was the meaning of the professor. The additional modify-
ing meaning, which I pointed out in the derivative, adds nothing to the
strength of signification as to mode, though it sufficiently accounts for
the use of the derivative to the exclusion of the primitive, in every
instance, with respect to the ordinance of baptism.
The just and most obvious method of ascertaining the meaning of a
word, is to examine its origin and use in the language. It may wander
far from its root, but if that root is known with certainty, the connexion
24 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
may still be traced. The derivative, however, may reject ideas con-
tained in the primitive, or it may receive additional ideas, which can
be learned only by being acquainted with its history. That baptizo is
formed from bapto is a thing beyond dispute. But as I have shown
that they are not perfectly coincident in their application, I shall examine
them separately, contrary to the general practice of writers on both
sides of the question. I shall give a copious list of examples, as it is
from this that my readers will be enabled independently to form their
own judgment. This method will, doubtless, appear tedious and unin-
teresting to many ; but it is the only method entitled to authority. For
a writer on controverted subjects to give merely his own opinion of the
import of his documents, accompanied with a few examples as a speci-
men of proof, would be the same as if an advocate should present a
judge and jury with his own views of evidence, instead of giving them
all his facts and circumstances in detail, to enable them to decide with
knowledge. A work of this kind is not for amusement, but requires
patience and industry in the reader, as well as in the writer. If the
one has ransacked documents to most readers inaccessible, to collect
evidence, the other should not grudge the toil of examining the evidence,
seeing it is only by such an examination that he can have the fullest
conviction of the truth. Is the meaning of this word to be eternally
disputed ? If one party says that it has this meaning, and another that,
while a third differs from both, and a fourth is confident that all three
are wrong, what method can legitimately settle the controversy, but an
actual appeal to the passages in which it is to be found? These are
the witnesses, whose testimony must decide this question ; and conse-
quently the more numerous and definite the examples, the more authori-
tative will be the decision. And as it is possible to tamper with evi-
dence, the witnesses must be questioned and cross-questioned, that the
truth may be ascertained without a doubt. Instead, therefore, of making
an apology for the. number of my examples, and the length of the obser-
vations that ascertain their meaning, the only thing I regret is, that I
have not every passage in which the word occurs in the Greek language.
Never was the meaning of a word so much disputed : no word was ever
disputed with less real grounds of difficulty.
Section II. — As it has been supposed by some to be a generic word,
signifying every application of water without any respect to mode, I
shall first give a specimen of examples, showing that it not only signifies
mode, but that the idea of water is not in the word at all. The nature
of the fluid is not expressed in the verb, but is expressed or understood
in its regimen.
Near the end of the Sixth Idyl of Theocritus, the word is applied to
the dipping of a vessel in honey. " Instead of water, let my maid dip
her pitcher into honey-combs."
Here such abundance of honey is supposed, that in the morning, the
maid-servant, instead of going to draw water, will dip her pitcher into
honey-combs. Not water, then, but honey, is the substance, with
respect to which the verb in question is here applied. And that dipping
THE MODE OP BAPTISM. 25
is the mode there can be no question. It would be absurd to speak of
pouring, or sprinkling, or washing, or wetting an urn into honey-combs.
Aristotle also applies it to the dipping of hay into honey for the
curing the flux in elephants. " Dipping hay into honey, they give it
them to eat." — Hist. Animal, lib. viii. 26. Though it would be possible
to sprinkle hay with honey, yet it would be absurd to speak of sprinkling
or pouring hay into honey. The preposition eis, with which the verb is
connected, forbids it to be translated by any other word but dip, even
were it possessed of different significations.
The same author, in his Treatise on the Soul, applies the word to wax.
" If one dip anything into wax, it is moved as far as he dips." — Lib. iii.
12. This surely is not an application of water. Nor can the mode be
any other than dipping. Neither pouring nor sprinkling, washing nor
wetting, can be imported here.
In the last line of the First Idyl of Moschus, the word is applied to
immersion in fire. Speaking of the gifts of Cupid, it is said, " For they
are all dipped in fire." This is a baptism in fire, and, beyond dispute,
dipping was the mode.
JElian applies the word to ointment : Stephanon eis mnron bapsas. —
Lib. xiv. cap. xxxix. " Having dipped a crown into ointment."
The learned friend who writes the Appendix to Mr. Ewing's Essay on
Baptism, translates this example thus : " Having tinged (imbued or
impregnated) with precious ointment a crown (or garland), — the crown
was woven of roses." This translation, however, is not made on sound
principles of interpretation. It rests on no basis. The author has not
produced one instance in which the word bapto incontestably and con-
fessedly must signify to imbue, except in the sense of dyeing. To tinge
a crown of flowers, is not to imbue it with additional fragrance, but to
colour it. The author violates both the Greek and the English. When
we speak of the tinge of a flower, we refer to its colour, not to its per-
fume. To tinge with ointment to give a fragrant smell, is not an English
expression. The translation labours under another disease. Eis muron
cannot be translated with ointment, but must be rendered into ointment.
To tinge into ointment is a solecism. The verb then cannot here
be translated tinge, or imbue, or impregnate, even though it had these
significations in other places. The expression cannot bear any other
translation than — " He dipped the crown into ointment." The learned
writer thinks it improbable that a crown of roses would be dipped in
viscid oil in order to improve its fragrance. I admit that it would not
be to my taste. But does the gentleman forget that it was the oddity
of the thing that induced the historian to mention it? Had it been a
common thing, it would not have had a place in ^Elian's anecdotes.
The person to whom it was presented, observed that he accepted it as a
token of the good-will of the giver, but that the natural fragrance of the
flower was corrupted by art. It is no improvement to gild a statue
of exquisite workmanship. Shall we, therefore, force the words of the
historians, that assert this of a certain Roman emperor, to assume
another sense ? Shall we say, that, as it was no improvement to the statue
to be gilded, the language must signify merely that it was washed ? To
4
26 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
proceed on such principles of interpretation, would render the precise
meaning of language utterly unattainable. It is absurd and chimerical
in the highest degree. In some points of view, I respect this writer
very much. But he reasons without first principles, and therefore, has
no basis for his conclusions. He is extensively acquainted with Greek
literature; but had he all the writings of the ancients in his memory,
he cannot be a critic, so long as he multiplies the meanings of words in
an arbitrary manner, according to his view of particular exigencies. In
his very next example, he makes the word bapto signify to purify, from
a different exigency. Jamblichus, in his Life of Pythagoras, relates, as
one of the directions of the philosopher to his disciples, — oude cis pcrir-
rantcrion embaptcin, which the writer of the Appendix translates, " not
to purify in the perirranterion." Here, again, he proceeds without first
principles. He has not alleged one instance in which the verb must
signify to purify. He has, then, no ground-work on which to rest
this assumption. And the preposition eis, occurring here both sepa-
rately and in conjunction with the verb, determines that the action of
the verb was directed into the perirranterion, or basin. Besides, as a
matter of fact, they did not purify in it, but out of it. Persons sprinkled
at the door of a Roman Catholic church are not said to be purified in
the vessel that contains the holy water. But the writer alleges that the
perirranterion was too small for dipping. Very true, if it is meant that
it was too small to dip the body in ; but it was not too small to dip
the thing that is here understood to be dipped, that is, the sprinkling
instrument. Had the writer considered that the phrase is elliptical, as
referring to a thing so well known that the regimen of the verb is
understood without being expressed, he would have had no necessity
for giving a new and an unauthorised meaning to the word bapto. In
the next direction given by Jamblichus, we have a similar ellipsis.
" Nor to bathe in a bath," that is, nor to bathe the body in a bath. We
ourselves use the same ellipsis. Pythagoras prohibited these things to
his disciples, because it was not certain that all who had fellowship with
them in the perirranterion and bath were pure. Do not dip in the
perirranterion ; do not use the perirranterion ; do not dip the sprinkling
instrument in order to purify. Nothing can be more unphilosophical
than the conduct of this writer. As often as he meets a difficulty, he
gives a new meaning to suit the situation. Now, though I could make
no sense of the passage at all, I would resolutely refuse to adopt any
meaning but one that the word confessedly has in some other place. It
is not enough to say that such a translation will make sense; it must be
the sense that the word is known to express.
Another difficulty with respect to a passage in Suidas de Hierocle,
induces this writer to translate bapto, to wet. He might as well trans-
late it, to dry. A person was scourged before the tribunal, " and,
flowing with blood, having wetted the hollow of his hand, he sprinkles
it on the judgment seat." The word, however, never signifies to wet ;
and even this translation does not suit the writer's own commentary.
He explains it as referring to the catching of the blood flowing from
his wounds, or letting the pouring blood fill the hollow of his hand. To
THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 27
wet is far enough from representing such a process. There can be no
doubt that the word bapsas is here to be translated in its usual sense.
" And having dipped the hollow of his hand, he sprinkles the tribunal."
It may be difficult to conceive the process, but of the meaning of the
expression there can be no doubt. If the blood was flowing down his
body, he might strike the palm of his hand on his skin, and gather up
the blood in the hollow of his hand. Whatever was the way in which
the operation was performed, the writer calls it a dipping of the hollow
of his hand.
In the Nubes, Aristophanes represents Socrates as ludicrously dipping
the feet of a flea into wax, as an ingenious expedient to measure its leap.
" Having melted the wax, he took the flea and dipped its feet into the
wax." Here the liquid is wax, and the mode can be nothing but
dipping. Such an instance determines the meaning of the word beyond
all reasonable controversy.
But, though the word is most usually and properly applied to fluids,
it is often applied even to solids that are penetrated. Dionysius of Hali-
carnassus applies it to the thrusting of a spear, bapsas, between the ribs
of a man. In like manner, we might say that a soldier plunged his
sword into the bowels of his enemy.
In Matt. xxvi. 23, the action of putting down the hand into a dish is
expressed by this word, when the hand was not actually immersed in the
fluid at the bottom. " Who dippeth his hand in the dish." Now, it is
true that, according to ancient manners, the fingers were actually dipped
in taking up food from the dish ; yet it is quite proper to speak thus of
the action of putting down the hand in the inside of a bowl or dish. An
excise officer might be said to dip a vessel even when empty : and we
speak of plunging into a wood. Miners also speak of the dip of a rock as
being north or south, by referring to the direction of its sinking or slope.
Lycophron represents Cassandra, foretelling the death of Clytemnestra
by the hand of her own son, as saying, " with his own hand he shall dip
his sword into the viper's bowels."
Here the word is applied to the penetrating of solids, in the sense of
thrusting or piercing. In like manner, we speak of burying a weapon
in the bowels. Pouring, sprinkling, washing, have no countenance here,
but are entirely excluded.
Ajax is represented by Sophocles as dipping his sword into the army
of the Greeks. In all such instances, there is a figurative stretch of the
word with a fine effect on composition ; but the whole beauty of the
expression consists in the reference to the proper and modal meaning of
the term.
Section III. — Having proved the application of the word to mode,
without respect to the nature of the fluid, I shall now at random produce
examples.
In the Thirteenth Idyl of Theocritus we have an example of it, in the
account of the drowning of the boy Hylas, who went to a fountain to
draw water for the supper of Hercules and Telamon. " The youth held
the capacious urn over the water, hasting to dip it," &c. Can anything
28 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
be more definite than this ? Can any one be at a loss to know how a
pitcher is filled with water at a fountain? Can an unprejudiced reader
demand a clearer example than this, to show the modal meaning of
bapto ? Even the unlearned reader may judge for himself in this matter.
Indeed, from the connexion in which the word is found, he may, in
almost all the examples, judge whether the translation of the term is
natural or forced. I hope, then, the unlearned reader will not pass over
even this part of the subject as altogether beyond him.
The word occurs in the Hecuba of Euripides. " Take a vessel, an-
cient servant, and having dipped it in the sea, bring it hither."
Dr. Gale informs us, that the explanation of the word in this place, by
one of the Greek scholiasts, is — "Baptein signifies to let down anything
into water, or any other liquid." Can we wish for better authority for
the meaning of a Greek word?
Aristophanes, in the play entitled Eirene, affords us an example of the
word : " Bring the torch, that I may take and dip it."
Dr. Gale observes, that the Greek Scholiast and Florent. Christianus,
preceptor to Henry IV. of France, refer this to the manner of purifying
among the Greeks, by dipping a lighted torch in water, and so sprinkling
the persons or things to be purified. This explains the Pythagorean
precept, quoted in Mr. Ewing's Appendix.
Dr. Gale has given us some fragments of this author, preserved by
Harpocratian, where the general meaning is more obscure, but in which
the peculiar meaning of this word is not at all doubtful. " When I have
dipped, I will cite the strangers before the judges." " This passage
would have been very obscure," says he, " and I do not know whether
anything would have given light to it, if Suidas had not attempted it ;
for I take this to be the passage he refers to, when he says, ' when I have
dipped the oar,' &c, which helps us to the sense of the word bapsas, in
this place, though it does not clear up the whole. Or, perhaps," says
he, " it may be a metaphor taken from the dyers, who say, for instance,
I will dip it, and make it a black." Athenaeus has preserved two other
fragments of the same author, in which the word occurs; one is, "what
a wretch am I, to be thus dipped over head and ears in brine, like a
pickled herring !" We have, therefore, the authority of Suidas, that
baptein applies to the dipping of an oar in the water.
Aristotle, speaking of a kind of fish, says : " They cannot bear great
changes, as the immersion of them into cold water, even in summer."
Can anything be more decisive? We could not speak of sprinkling,
or pouring, or wetting a fish into water.
Speaking of the remedy for the bite of a certain kind of snake in Africa,
he says : " Of which the remedy is said to be a certain stone, which they
take from the sepulchre of a king of ancient times, and, having immersed
it in wine, drink it." Here the virtue of the stone is supposed to be
extracted by the wine in which it is dipped. They do not sprinkle the
stone with wine, nor pour wine upon it, but they dipped the stone, and
then drank the wine in which it was dipped. Even the unlearned
reader can be at no loss with respect to the mode imported by the word
in this process.
THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 29
The same author applies the word to the immersion of animals in a
pool of Sicily, which had the property of resuscitating them when put
into it after suffocation. What can be more satisfactory than this? If
anything can be more decisive, it is an example from the same author,
in which he tells us, that it is the custom of some nations to clip their
children into cold water, soon after birth, in order to harden them.
Herodotus decisively fixes the meaning of this word, when he applies
it to the Scythian ceremony of dipping certain things in a mixture of
blood and water, in concluding an alliance. " The Scythians, in con-
cluding a league with any one, make it in the following manner : — Hav-
ing poured wine into an earthen vessel, they mingle with it the blood of
the parties, making a slight incision in the body by a knife or a sword.
After this, they dip into the vessel a scimitar and arrows, a hatchet and
a javelin. When they have done this, they utter many imprecations ;
and they who make the league, with the most distinguished of the com-
pany, drink the mixture." The phrase apobapsantes es ten kulika, can
mean nothing but clipping in the hotel. Pouring, sprinkling, ivashing,
wetting, and all other fancies, are entirely excluded.
The setting of a constellation is termed, by Aratus, clipping in the
sea. Is there any doubt with respect to mode in this example ? When
the sun, moon, and stars descend below our horizon, when we stand on
the shore, they appear to dip in the sea. All nations speak in phrase-
ology that imports this. We have some beautiful examples in Virgil.
The same author applies the word, just in our manner, to the setting
sun : " If the sun clips himself, without a cloud, into the western sea."
Again he says : " If the crow dips his head into the river." Can any
one need a commentary to point out the mode imported by the word here?
" Constantine," says Dr. Gale, " observes, from an epigram of Her-
molaus, He dipped his pitcher in the water. The mysterious Lycophron
affords us an instance parallel to this in Callimachus : dipping with
strange and foreign buckets." And again, to this may be added what
Aristotle says in his Mechanical Questions : " The bucket must be first
let doivn, or dipped, and then be drawn up again, when it is full." Can
anything be supposed more specifically to express dipping, than bapto,
in these instances ?
Homer employs the word in the Odyssey, in a situation where the
meaning cannot be doubted. He compares the hissing of the eye of
Polyphemus, when bored by a red-hot stake, to the hissing of the water
when a smith dips his iron in order to temper it.
" As when the smith, an hatchet or large axe,
Tempering with skill, plunges the hissing blacre
Deep in cold water. (Whence the strength of steel.)"
Cowper.
No one who has seen a horse shod will be at a loss to know the mode
of the application of water in this instance. The immersion of the newly
formed shoe in water, in order to harden the metal, is expressed by the
word baptein. An instance of the same kind we have in the Apocry-
phal Book of Ecclesiasticus, where iron heated in the furnace is said to
30 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
be tempered by immersion in water. The note of Didymus on the place
is : " the dipping of red-hot iron in cold water hardens it."
Anacreon, in his Ode on the Arrows of Cupid, represents them as
forged by Vulcan, and dipped by Venus in honey, into which Cupid put
a mixture of gall.
The manner of poisoning arrows by dipping their points in the
poisonous matter, sufficiently explains this. Here we see, also, that
this word applies to honey, and even to gall — to poisoning as well as to
washing.
Herodotus, speaking of a custom of the Egyptians, employs this word
in a sense entirely analogous to the use of baptizein, in the ordinance
of baptism. He applies it to a ceremonial or religious purification of
the person and garments, by immersion in a river after defilement.
" The Egyptians consider the swine so polluted a beast, that if any one
in passing touch a swine, he will go away and dip himself with his very
garments, going into the river." Here is a religious baptism, for the
purpose of cleansing from defilement ; and it is by immersion, expressed
by baptein. Can any one require a more definite example? The per-
son dips himself; therefore it is bapto, to dip, and not baptizo, to cause
to dip. All the occurrences of the word in the Septuagint are confirma-
tory of this view of its meaning.
Ex. xii. 22. " And ye shall take a bunch of hyssop, and dipping it
in the blood which is at the door," &,c. The effect of the thing done
is not washing : it is smearing. The mode is not pouring or sprinkling,
but dipping.
Lev. iv. 6. " And the priest shall dip his finger in the blood, and
sprinkle of the blood," &ic. Here we have the action both of dipping
and sprinkling ; and bapto applies to the former, while raino applies to
the latter. Can anything be more decisive than this?
Lev. iv. 17. " And the priest shall dip his finger in the blood of the
bullock, and sprinkle it," &,c.
Lev. ix. 9. " And he dipped his finger into the blood." He could
not sprinkle or pour his finger into the blood.
Lev. xi. 32. "It must be put into water." Literally, "It shall be
dipped into water." This cannot admit even of plausible evasion.
Lev. xiv. 6. " And shall dip them and the living bird in the blood," &c.
Dr. Wall has asserted that the word bapsei here, cannot be understood
dipping all over ; for the blood of the bird in the basin could not be
enough to receive the living bird, and the cedar wood, and the scarlet,
and the hyssop, all into it. To this the answer of Dr. Gale is perfectly
satisfactory. The blood of the slain bird was received in a vessel of
running water, in which mixture, as appears from verse 51, the things
were to be dipped. It may be added, that this makes the figure have a
beautiful alrasion to the double efficacy of the blood of Jesus Christ
It washes as well as atones ; and though this might be exhibited by sepa-
rate dippings, yet the union is seen more clearly in the combination of
blood and water. But that the word baptein is employed when only a part
of an object is dipped, is most freely admitted ; and the same thing may
be said of the very word dip itself. Thus we speak of dipping a pen in ink,
THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 31
when only the point of the pen is dipped. What should we say of the
foreigner who should allege that the English word dip, when applied
in the expression, They dipped the man in the river, does not necessarily
imply that they dipped him all over, because he finds from the expression,
dip a pen in ink, it is applied sometimes when only a part is dipped?
Yet grave doctors, when they criticise in a dead language, make them-
selves such fools ! and their folly is concealed only by the circumstance,
that the language is dead with respect to which they make their silly
observations. Every person at all accustomed to philosophise on language,
knows that such a figure is quite common ; but that it never alters or
affects the proper meaning of the word. The figure, in fact, is not in the
verb, but in its regimen. In all such expressions, both bapto and dip
have their proper and entire significations, and express mode, as fully as
when there is no figure. The expression, dip a pen, determines mode as
clearly as when the object is sunk to the bottom of the sea, never to arise.
A writer must be perverse indeed, who indulges himself in such quibbles ;
yet some of the gravest and most learned writers have urged this objec-
tion. It must be observed, that Dr. Wall, though he is a friend to infant
baptism, is decidedly in favour of immersion. With respect to all such
elliptical phrases, I observe, that they are used only about common opera-
tions, when the part to be dipped is so well known as to prevent obscurity.
But granting to the authors of this objection all their demands, I hope
we shall find them dipping at least a part of the body of the person
baptized. It is strange to find Christians arguing that the word, though
it signifies to immerse, may be applied when only a part is dipped ; yet
in their own practice, dipping neither in whole nor in part, but substitut-
ing pouring or sprinkling in its place.
Lev. xiv. 16. " That the priest shall dip his right finger in the oil
that is in his left hand, and shall sprinkle of the oil with his finger seven
times before the Lord." Here, also, we see the characteristic distinction
between dippi?ig and sprinkling. The action of putting the oil on the
finger is expressed by bapto ; that of applying it to the object, by raino.
The word occurs again in the 51st verse, with reference to the same
process as that described in verse 6.
Numb. xix. 18. " And a clean person shall take hyssop, and dip it
in the water, and sprinkle it upon the house."
Deut. xxxiii. 24. " Let him dip his foot in oil." Here the great
abundance of oil is expressed by representing the possessor as dipping
his foot in it. The unlearned reader may perceive, that in all these
instances the meaning of the word in question is so clear and definite,
that even our translators, who were no practical immersers, render it as
we do. Can it then admit a doubt, that this is the proper rendering ?
Josh. iii. 15. " And as they that bare the ark were come unto Jordan,
and the feet of the priests that bare the ark were dipped in the brim of
the water."
Ruth ii. 14. " Dip thy morsel in the vinegar."
1 Sam. xiv. 27. " And Jonathan heard not when his father charged
the people with the oath ; wherefore he put forth the end of the rod that
was in his hand, and dipped it in a honey-comb." Here the mode is
32 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
most dcterminately fixed. He stretched forth his rod, and dipping the
point of it, ate the honey off the rod.
2 Kings viii. 15. " And it came to pass, that on the morrow he took
a thick cloth, and dipped it in water."
Job ix. 31. What our translators render, " yet shalt thou plunge me
in the ditch," &c, in the Greek is, Thou hast dipped me deeply in filth.
Here we not only have the mode signified by this word, but evidence
that the word is as applicable when the object of dipping is to defile, as
when the object is to wash. It denotes the mode only, without any
reference to the intention with which it is used.
Psalm Ixviii. 23. " That thy feet may be dipped in the blood of thine
enemies, and the tongue of thy dogs in the same." Here the person is
supposed to wade through blood, to denote the great slaughter.
In 2 Mac. i. 21, the word is used to signify the drawing of water from
a deep pit (compare verse 19) : "He ordered them to draw," literally dip.
The use of the word in the New Testament is exactly the same as in
the examples which have been quoted from other writers. Matt. xxiv. 23,
has already been referred to. The same transaction is related Mark
xiv. 20 : " It is one of the twelve that dippeth with me in the dish."
John xiii. 26, relates the fact, omitting the circumstance that the betrayer
was dipping with him in the dish, and giving a circumstance omitted by
Matthew and Mark, namely, that Jesus pointed out the betrayer by
giving him a sop, after he had dipped it. The word here refers to the
dipping of the bread in the bitter sauce. Neither pouring nor sprinkling
could have any place here.
Luke xvi. 24. " And he cried and said, Father Abraham; have mercy
on me ; and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water,
and cool my tongue."
Rev. xix. 13. " And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood."
The glorious Redeemer is here represented as going forth to the de-
struction of his enemies, and, as an emblem of his work, he is figured
as clothed with a vesture dipped in blood. This gives the most awful
image of the approaching slaughter. Dr. Gale, indeed, has alleged some
reasons, to prove that we have not here the genuine reading. " The
authority of Origen," says he, " whose writings are older than any copies
of the Old Testament we can boast of, and therefore that he described
from more ancient copies, must be more considerable than any we have.
Now he, in his Commentary on St. John's Gospel, cites these words from
ver. 11, to ver. 16, inclusively, almost verbatim as they are in our
edition, but reads sprinkled, instead of dipped; which makes this
passage nothing to our purpose. However, I should not think this single
authority of Origen sufficient to justify my altering the word; but I have
likewise observed that the Syriac and JEthiopic versions, which, for
their antiquity, must be thought almost as valuable and authentic as the
original itself, being made from primitive copies, in or very near the
times of the apostles, and rendering the passage by words which signify
to sprinkle, must greatly confirm Origen's reading of the place, and very
strongly argue, that he has preserved the very same word which was in
the autograph." These reasons, however, do not in the least bring the
THE MODE OP BAPTISM. 33
common reading into suspicion in my mind, and I will never adopt a
reading to serve a purpose. Misapprehension of the meaning of the
passage, it is much more likely, has substituted sprinkled for dipped.
The warrior is represented as going out, and not as returning, and the
garment is emblematically dyed to represent his work before it was
begun. Dr. Cox's reply to Mr. Ewing's observations on this verse, is a
triumphant refutation of the objection which misconception has founded
on this passage, and must silence it for ever.
Section IV. — Before I proceed farther, I shall advert to some exam-
ples in which bapto has been supposed to signify to toash ; but in all of
which it retains its own peculiar meaning.
Aristophanes applies the word to the cleansing of wool in warm water ;
must not wash or cleanse, then, be one of its meanings ? By no means.
Let us examine his words : " First they dip the wool in warm water,
according to ancient custom." What is asserted is, that they dip, or
immerse, or plunge the wool into warm water. Washing is the consequence
of the operation, but is not the thing expressed by the verb. It might
be rendered by wash in a free translation ; but this would be to give the
sense, not an exact version of the words. Had he used the word pluno,
then the washing would have been expressed, and the dipping would
have been necessarily supposed. Both these words might be used for the
same thing in many situations ; still each of them would have its peculiar
meaning. Accordingly, Suidas and Phavorinus interpret baptousi here
by plunousi. It argues very shallow philosophy, however, to suppose,
that on this account the words are perfectly synonymous. We could,
even in our own language, say indifferently, that sheep are dipped in the
river before they are shorn, or sheep are washed in the river before they
are shorn, yet this does not make dip and ivash synonymous in our
language.
Words may be so far equivalent, as in certain situations to be equally
fitted to fill the same place, when each continues even in such situations
to have its characteristic meaning. Ignorance of this important prin-
ciple in the application of words, has led writers into the greatest absur-
dities, in determining the meaning of terms in a dead language. When-
ever they find one word used in explanation of another, or where another
would serve the purpose, they think the words are synonymous. This
is a false first principle, and all reasonings founded on it must be un-
sound. Yet this is the most plausible argument that Dr. Wall and
others can find to prove that bapto signifies to roash. Suidas and Pha-
vorinus explain it by pluno, therefore they think it must signify to wash.
To convince the unlearned reader of the fallacy of this principle, let him
open an English dictionary, and try if all the words given in explanation
are strictly synonymous with those which they are used to explain. Yet
on this principle, it is supposed to be irresistibly evident that bapto sig-
nifies to wash, because baptism is referred to in the expression, " having
your bodies washed with pure water," Heb. x. 22. When a person is
dipped in pure water, he is washed; still dipping and washing are two
different things. Baptism is a washing, not from the meaning of the
5
34 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
word itself, for as far as that is concerned, it might be a defilement ;
but because it is an an immersion in pure water.
The passage from Herodotus, in which he represents swine as an
abomination to the Egyptians, coincides entirely with this doctrine. If'
an Egyptian touches a swine, he runs immediately to the river and dips
himself. That he dips himself, is the thing expressed ; but as the pur-
pose of the dipping is cleansing, or religious washing, the same fact
might be substantially reported by saying, that he washed, or cleansed,
or purified, or bathed himself in the river. Yet bapto no more signifies
to wash or purify here, than it does in the translation of the. LXX., with
respect to Job, when applied to plunging in filth. The word has here
its own peculiar meaning, and makes not the smallest intrusion into the
province of louo. Mr. Ewing's remarks on this passage is truly surpris-
ing. The Egyptian, it seems, performed this operation on himself, but
the Christian is baptized by another. And can Mr. Ewing really think
that this is anything to the purpose ? Was it ever supposed that it is
from the verb bapto that we are to learn whether a believer is to dip
himself, or to be dipped by another, in the ordinance of baptism ? It is
enough that the word informs of the mode : other things must be learned
from their proper sources. From Herodotus, in the story of the Egyptian,
we may learn the meaning of the word; but from Scripture, we must
learn whether the operation is to be performed to the believer by him-
self, or by another. Was ever anything so unreasonable, as to expect a
perfect coincidence between an ordinance of Christ, and a superstitious
custom of heathens? The meaning of the word is quite unaffected,
whether the person dips himself or is dipped by another. Does Mr.
Ewing doubt whether bapto can apply when the operation respects a
thing different from the agent ? This cannot be his meaning, for almost
all the examples of its use refer to such cases. Does he mean, that
among the innumerable things which are said to be dipped, as expressed
by bapto, a human being is not to be found, except in the case of one
performing the operation for himself? If this is his meaning, it is not
to the purpose ; for though an example could not be found in which one
person is said to dip another, the command of Christ warrants the
practice, and the word bapto will apply to one thing as well as another.
But, as Dr. Cox has observed, there is an example in the case of the
drowning of Aristobulus, which we shall afterwards consider : and we
have already seen an example in the Scythian custom of immersing their
new-born infants. But I will never consent that any such example is
necessary. The demand is founded on a false principle of criticism.
A passage from the Hymns of Callimachus, in which this word is mis-
understood by some, is set in its proper light by Dr. Gale. " My
opinion," says he, " is confirmed also by Callimachus, in his Hymns,
when he says : ' Ye Grecian watermen (they furnished private houses
with water, as some do among us), dip not your vessels in the river
Inachus to-day.' The hymn was made on the solemnizing the festival
of washing the statue of Pallas ; which ceremony was performed by
persons set apart for that purpose, in the river Inachus, a little before
day ; from this river the inhabitants were usually supplied with water,
THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 35
which makes the poet, in veneration to the goddess, charge the water-
men here not to dip their pitchers in the river on that day."
This, however, is of importance, rather for the understanding of the
poet, than for ascertaining the meaning of the word in question. For
whether the purpose of the waterman was to wash their pitchers by
dipping them, or to fill them by dipping them, dipping is the only thing
expressed by the word bapto.
In Dan. iv. 30, and v. 21, this word is rendered by zoet in our version,
which may seem an insuperable objection to the uniformity of its signi-
fication of mode. This instance is thought to support their opinion, who
assert that bapto is a generic word, denoting the bringing of anything into
a state of wetness. But there is here no exception to the peculiar
meaning of the word. The term wet gives the general sense of the
passage well enough, but it is by no means a translation of the word in the
original, nor of that employed by the Septuagint. It ought to have been
rendered according to the usual modal meaning, which, instead of
being harsh, would have found corresponding expressions in all lan-
guages. By employing a general word, our translators in this instance
have lost the peculiar beauty of the original, without in the least adding
to the perspicuity. The words of the Septuagint are, " His body was
immersed in the dew." In the translation, " His body was wet with the
dew," the general effect is the same, but the eloquence of expression has
evaporated. But a soulless critic will reply, " there was here no literal
immersion ; the word cannot then be used in that sense." Were we to
pass through the poets, conforming their language to this observation,
what havoc should we make of their beauties ! How dull and lifeless
would become their animated expressions ! I have seen no explication
of this passage that appears to develop the principle of this application,
though the general sense of the passage is well enough understood. As
the theory of generic meaning in bapto. including every application of
water without reference to mode, has no other plausible foundation but
the common version of this passage, it will be of importance to settle the
question, though it should occupy some pages.
Dr. Gale affords us many materials to prove that the word has here
its ordinary sense ; but I think he fails in his attempt to analyze the
expression. His observations on the copiousness of the eastern dews are
much to the purpose ; apart of which I shall transcribe. " Philosophi-
cally speaking," says he, " the hottest climates and clearest skies naturally
abound most with dew, which is also confirmed by constant experience.
It is commonly known to be so in her Majesty's Leeward Islands in
America, — where one season of the year, when they have no rains for a
considerable time together, the fruits of the earth would be burned up,
were it not for the dews that fall plentifully in the night. That incom
parable mathematician, Captain Halley, observed, when making sorrv
experiments in St. Helena, that the dews fell in such abundance as to
make his paper too wet to write on, and his glasses unfit for use without
frequent wiping. And as to Africa, in particular, where part of Nebu-
chadnezzar's dominions lay, Pliny tells us the nights were very dewy.
Egypt has little or no rain; but is fed by the overflowing of the Nile,
36 THE MODE OP BAPTISM.
and by constant nocturnal dews ; and Nebuchadnezzar kept his court
in a country of near the same latitude, and consequently of the like
temperament."
This is very useful as a ground-work for the analysis of the expression ;
but it does not in the least give a reason why a wetting with a copious
fall of dew is called an immersion. Had this monarch been wet even by
a shower-bath, why is his wetting called a dipping 1 If all the water in
the ocean had fallen on him, it would not have been a literal immersion.
The mode would still be wanting. Our opponents, if they know their
business, may admit this, and still deny the consequence which this
writer draws from it. Nor does this gentleman succeed better in ana-
lyzing the expression. " Hence it appears very clear," says he, " that
both Daniel and his translators designed to express the great dew
Nebuchadnezzar should be exposed to, more emphatically, by saying, he
should lie in dew, and be covered with it all over, as if he had been
dipped ; for that is so much like being dipped, as at most to differ no
more than being in, and being put in ; so that the metaphor is easy, and
not at all strained." But Daniel does not say that Nebuchadnezzar
should lie in dew, and be covered with it all over. Had this been his
expression, it would have been quite literal. Dr. Gale absurdly supposes
that bapto means to cover with water without reference to mode, and at
the same time metaphorically alludes to dipping. Neither Daniel nor
his translators say, that Nebuchadnezzar should be as wet as if he were
dipped; for if that had been the expression, there could have been no
dispute about it.
Dr. Cox's reply to Mr. Ewing, with respect to the analysis of this
expression, appears to me not quite satisfactory. " It was," says Mr.
Ewing, "popped upon, not even by effusion, but by the gentlest distillation
that is known in nature." " To this it has been generally replied," says
Dr. Cox, " and I think satisfactorily, that a body exposed to eastern
dews would be as wet as if plunged into water." Now, this is valid, as
proving that the body ought to be completely wetted in baptism ; but it
leaves the mode unaccounted for. Mr. Ewing might grant this, yet still
insist, from this passage, that mode is not contained in the word. Many
persons do plead for a copious effusion of water in baptism ; and they
might yield to the above reasoning, still contending that the mode is not
essential, or that it is not immersion. The most complete wetting by
dew or rain is not dipping literally. If we would fairly meet this
passage, we must show, not merely that Nebuchadnezzar was completely
wetted, but that a wetting in one mode may be figuratively designated
by the words that properly denote a wetting in another mode. I will
not hide one particle of the strength of our opponents' cause, nor an
apparent weakness in our own. Let Christianity itself sink, rather than
use one insufficient argument.
Dr. Cox continues : " The passage, however, merits a little more
detailed explanation. The verb is used in the passive voice, in the
second aorist, and the indicative mood, implying consequently that the
action was past, and indefinite as to time." It does not seem to me, that
the voice, tense, and mood of the verb, have any concern in this debate.
THE MODE OP BAPTISM. 37
In all voices, tenses, and moods, a verb must have its characteristic
meaning. "It does not," continues Dr. Cox, "imply the manner in
which the effect was produced, but the effect itself; not the mode by
which the body of the king was wetted, but its condition, as resulting
from exposure to the dew of heaven." Without doubt, the verb expresses
mode here as well as anywhere else. To suppose the contrary gives up
the point at issue, as far as mode is concerned. This in fact makes
bapto signify simply to wet, without reference to mode.
Dr. Cox gives an illustration, but unfortunately it can give no relief,
as it fails in an essential point of similarity. "Suppose," says he, "by
way of illustration, we select another word, and put it into the same
voice and tense; as eblabe npo sou, 'he was hurt by you.' It is obvious
that this representation might refer to an injury done long ago, and
would predicate nothing of the manner in which it was inflicted," &c.
Very true. Nothing of manner is here expressed, and for an obvious
reason, nothing of manner is expressed by the verb blapto. But will
Dr. Cox grant that this is the case with the verb bapto? If he does,
about what is he contending? Bapto not only necessarily implies mode,
but literally expresses nothing but mode. Instead of literally denoting
wetting in any manner, it does not literally include wetting at all. This
is as true in this passage, as it is in any other. Mode is as much ex-
pressed here, as it is in the commission of our Lord to the apostles.
The difference is, that the thing that is here called an immersion was
so only figuratively. I claim this passage as much as I do the plainest
example in the New Testament.
That the word in question ought here, as in all other places, to be
rendered immerse, is necessary from the following reasons :
1. It is utterly unwarrantable to give a meaning to the word which it
cannot be shown to have in some unquestionable examples. To assign a
meaning not so justified, is to reason without first principles — to build
without a foundation. This suits the visionary, but can never be the
resource of true criticism. Now, the whole history of the word does
not afford a single example in which it must signify to wet. Whatever,
then, may be the principle on which this icetting of Nebuchadnezzar is
called immersion, immersion it is called.
2. This is confirmed, as Dr. Cox has observed, by the original. The
word in the original signifies to dip; if so, why should not the Greek
word by which it is translated have its own peculiar meaning? How
can mode be excluded, if it is in both the original and the translation?
3. The Syriac version, as Dr. Gale remarks, renders the original in
the same manner as the LXX. " The authors of the ancient and valu-
able Syriac version," says he, " who were of the neighbourhood of Baby-
lon, and well enough acquainted with the large dews in those parts, and
endeavored to give an exact literal translation, have shunned this error."
If, then, the Syriac translators have rendered the original by a term that
signifies to dip, why should not bapto in the translation of the LXX.
have the same meaning? To me the reasoning of Dr. Gale is entirely
satisfactory.
4. The expression is intelligible and beautiful in our own language,
38 THE MODE OP BAPTISM.
and, I have no doubt, might be exemplified in all languages. Alluding
to the flood, we might say, that God immersed the world in water ; or of
a rock when covered by the tide, that it is immersed in the sea. Do we
not every day hear similar phraseology? The man who has been
exposed to a summer-plump will say that he has got a complete dipping.
This is the very expression of Daniel. One mode of wetting is figured
as another mode of wetting, by the liveliness of the imagination. The
same figure meets us almost in every page of the poets. Virgil will
supply us with instances in abundance : —
"Postquamcollapsi cineres, et flamma quievit;
Relliquias vino et bibulam lavere favillam."
They washed the relics, and the warm spark, in wine.
Who washes ashes, and bones, and embers? On the principle of
Mr. Ewing's criticism, we might, from this passage of Virgil, deny that
lavo properly signifies to wash, and assert that it denotes to drench, to
quench, to wet, to moisten, &c. What avails it, then, to tell us that
Nebuchadnezzar was wet with the gentlest distillation in nature? The
effect of that gentle operation may be so like that of another more violent
operation, that the language of the imagination may designate the more
gentle by the characteristic denomination of the more violent. A ivctting
by dew may, in the language of animation, be called a dipping. Lan-
guage violates the laws of natural philosophy, as well as of logic, without
scruple ; or rather it does not at all own subjection to them. It owes
allegiance only to the laws of mind. Things most absurd, if explained
according to the laws of natural philosophy, and most untrue, according
to the laws of logic, are true and beautiful when tried by their proper
standard. Why did Virgil make such an application of the word lavo
here? Was it for lack of proper terms to express his ideas? Of
these he had abundance. Was it to deceive or puzzle? Neither; for
his meaning appears at a glance. He uses lavo for the same reason that
the Holy Spirit, by Daniel, used the word signifying to immerse, when
speaking of the wetting of Nebuchadnezzar by the dew, to enliven the
style. Every reader must observe that much of the beauty of this pas-
sage in Virgil is owing to the use of the word lavo in this figurative,
catachrestic sense. Literal accuracy would have been comparatively
tame. And had not the word bapto been a term whose meaning affects
religious practice, the above expression of Daniel and the Septuagint,
instead of tormenting commentators and controversialists, would have
been admired as a beauty in composition. " Wetting by the gentlest
distillation in nature," would the critic say, " is here, in the most lively
and imaginative language, figured as an immersion." But what is an ele-
gance in the classics, is a ground of never-ending quibble to theologians,
who, instead of seeking the laws of language in the human mind, subject
the words of the Spirit to the laws of logical truth. No doubt, were
Virgil of authority in religion, and were rites and ceremonies to be deter-
mined by his writings, the above expression would have been as vari-
ously interpreted as that in Daniel. Many a time we should hear, that
THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 39
lavo, from this example, does not signify to wash, but to wet, to moisten,
to drench.
Virgil affords us another example in the same word :
" Illi alternantes multa vi praelia iniscent
Vulneribus crebris : lavit ater corpora sanguis."
In the encounter of the two bulls, the black blood ivashes their bodies.
Here it might be said, in the spirit of Mr. Ewing's criticism, the black
blood could not wash ; nay, it would defile the bodies of the contending
animals. Lavo, then, cannot signify to wash, but to smear. But every
one must see that the word lavo has here its peculiar signification, and
that the whole beauty of the expression depends on this circumstance.
Every man who has a soul at all, knows well that lavo is here much
more beautiful, than if the poet had chosen a term literally signifying to
smear. That which was a real defilement is called a washing, to express
figuratively the copiousness of the blood that flowed from the mutual
wounds of the contending bulls. This gives a feast to the imagination,
where literal expression would afford no food. Audire habenas, to hear
the reins, signifying to obey the bridle, is an expression of the same kind.
Indeed, it is impossible to open the poets without being presented with
examples of this phraseology.
Section V. — Having examined those examples in which this word
has been supposed to signify to wash or to ivet, but in each of which it
is to be explained according to its characteristic meaning, I shall now
proceed with other examples. The word occurs, as might be expected,
very frequently in the writings of Hippocrates : and as, in medical use,
there is occasion to refer repeatedly to every mode of the application of
liquids, in the voluminous writings of this great physician, there can be
no doubt but we shall find the characteristic meaning of bapto. Ac-
cordingly, we do find it in numerous instances ; and in all these, I do
not recollect any but one, in which it has not the sense of dip. In that
one, it signifies to dye, according to its secondary import.
The first occurrence of it which I have observed in this author, is in
his treatise De Superfcet. p. 50, edit. Basil. " Dip the probes in some
emollient."
At the bottom of the next page, we have another example : " Dipping
the rag in white sweet-smelling Egyptian ointment."
In the treatise De Victus Ratione, p. 104, the following example
occurs : " Let the food be cakes dipped hot in sour wine."
In the treatise De Usu Humidorum, we have the following example :
" But for the sake of cooling the wound, wool is either sprinkled with
the sour wine, or put into it, or it may be dipped into the coldest water."
In continuation from the last words, the following immediately suc-
ceed, p. 113: " As a cooler, black wine is sprinkled on wood, whereas
beet-leaves and linen are for the most part dipped.
In the treatise De Morbis, we have the following examples, lib. xi.
p. 145 : " Dipping sponges in warm water, apply them to the head."
In the next page, at top, we have the following example : " As an
40 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
external application, dipping sponges into warm water, let them be
applied to the cheeks and jaws. A similar example occurs near the
top of the next page : " Dipping a sponge into warm water, apply it."
Page 149 : " Give garlic, dipping it into honey."
In page 151 , we have the following example : " Let him not sup soup,
nor even dip his bread into it." In the Appendix to Mr. Ewing's Essay
on Baptism, written by a friend, we find a very odd view of this passage.
I shall quote his observations at large. " Hippocrates (de Morb. lib. ii.)
uses baptesthai to denote the application of a liquid to the skin ; zomos
de me phoreito me de baptesthai, ' neither sip, nor pour (or sprinkle)
broth ;' using baptesthai in this sense, I suppose, from the idea that the
application of the liquid would strongly affect the place to which the
application was made ; at all events, it would require no small ingenuity
to discover in this passage the idea of immersion." In this criticism there
is a complication of errors and false principles. 1. Why does the author
translate baptesthai by pour or sprinkle ? Is there one instance in which
it confessedly must have this meaning in the whole compass of Greek
literature ? If not, to apply such a meaning in any particular emergency
is to reason without first principles. 2. If the author read the whole of
the works of Hippocrates, as I am convinced he did, must he not have
found a multitude of examples in which the word bapto unquestionably
has the meaning dip ? He might reply, such a meaning could not apply
here. But even if he could not find any view in which the usual mean-
ing of the verb could apply in this instance, would it not have been more
candid to grant the usual signification of the word, and confess a diffi-
culty, than to assign a meaning altogether at random, without a shadow
of authority either from the word or the context? 3. How does he
bring the skin of the patient into requisition in this place ? Where does
he find this? Neither in the expression, nor in any usual ellipsis. He
might as well have supposed the feet or the head. 4. Is it a fact that
broth or soup would have such a mischievous effect on the skin ? The
solution of this surpasses my medical knowledge. 5. It requires no in-
genuity to find here the proper meaning of the word baptesthai, as im-
porting to dip. It is well known that at table the ancients dipped their
bread into the soup, or other liquid which they used as a seasoning.
What, then, can be so natural as to fill up the ellipsis with the bread
which was dipped ? An ellipsis of the regimen in things so common
was quite usual. The evangelist uses the same ellipsis, where he says,
" he that dippeth with me in the dish," that is, he that dippeth his hand
with me in the dish, as another evangelist expresses it ; or " he that
dippeth his bread with me" might, with equal propriety, be supplied as
the supplemental matter. 6. The elliptical matter must be supplied by
the connexion. In an ellipsis we are never left to wander abroad to look
for the thing that is wanting. It is always omitted, because it is so obvious
that it cannot be missed. This is the principle on which ellipsis is used,
and on no other is it justifiable. Were it otherwise, all language would
consist of riddles. This is the reason why ellipsis is so common in con-
versation, and about the most common things. What is omitted is
omitted because every hearer will instantly supply it. We say of a
THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 41
man, that he is a great drinker — drinker of what? Drinker of water?
No Drinker of milk ? No. But, without the smallest hesitation, we
understand it to be drinker of ardent spirits. Just so in the present pas-
sage. The elliptical matter must be supplied from the connexion, and
this leaves no doubt what it is. The writer was giving direction about
the food of his patient. In the words immediately preceding, he pre-
scribed boiled mutton, fowl, gourd, and beet. In the passage quoted, he
forbids him to eat broth, or even to dip — dip what? Dip his bread, or
his food, whatever it was, in the broth. What else could he mean ? In
this view, the passage has a natural and a rational meaning. In some
cases, a patient might be forbidden to partake freely of broth, when he
might be permitted to season his morsel by dipping it in the savoury
liquid. But in this case, it seems, even this indulgence was not permitted.
But upon what principle could the skin of the patient be supplied as the
supplemental matter ? It is not in the connexion, and is as arbitrary as
if we should supply the coat of the patient. It may be added, that, in
the immediately succeeding connexion, the patient is permitted to eat
fish. The whole passage speaks of diet. 7. Whatever is forbidden in
a medical prescription, must be a thing that is likely to be done, if not
forbidden. No physician would act so absurdly as to prohibit what
there is no probability his patient would do. Now, there was no proba-
bility that the patient here would sprinkle broth on his skin, had the
physician been silent on the subject. I never heard of any such custom;
and against even accidental sprinkling he was sufficiently guarded, by
the circumstance that he was not permitted to use the fluid as food.
There was surely no danger of sprinkling his skin with broth, if he was
not permitted to eat broth. This gloss is one of the wildest that I
ever met.
The word occurs again in the same book, p. 153. " Dipping linen
rags into water, apply them to the breast and back."
Lib. iii. p. 163. " A livid blister rising on the tongue, as of iron
dipped into oil"
P. 164. " Having dipped a piece of fine linen into moist Eretrian
earth, well pounded and warm, cover the breast round with it."
In the treatise De Internarum Partium Affectibus, we have the fol-
lowing examples from the same author : —
P. 193. " Dipping beet in cold water, apply it to the body, especially
to a new pain ; or dipping rags in cold water, after wringing out the
water, apply them."
In the same page we have another example : " Let him eat green mar-
joram, for the most part dipping it into honey."
P. 199. Having prescribed a variety of things to be eaten by his
patient, he adds : " These are of a very dry nature ; and let him not dip
them into the broth." This passage is a decisive commentary on the
ellipsis which Mr. Ewing's friend has so strangely misunderstood. The
different kinds of food here mentioned are prescribed on account of the
quality of dryness, and the patient is expressly forbidden to dip them in
the soup or broth, as was usual. He is not forbidden to sprinkle his
skin with broth, which no man ever thought of doing ; but he is for-
6
42 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
bidden, in the eating of the things prescribed, to dip them in the soup,
which he was likely to do, had he not been forbidden.
P. 202. " Burn it with spindles of box-wood, dipping them into
boiling oil."
P. 203. " Let him use radish and parsley, dipping them into vinegar."
In the treatise De Natura Muliebri, p. 119 : " Dipping (the flies) into
the oil of roses."
P. 226. " Dipping the softest wool in a pipkin."
P. 228. " Dipping the balls into the juice of the fig-tree."
P. 231. " Dipping (the plaster) into white Egyptian oil."
In the treatise De Morb. Mul. the following examples occur :
P. 249. " Taking a sponge, or dipping soft wool into warm water."
And in the next line : " Then dipping again the sponge, or the wool,
into pure wine."
P. 250. Speaking of a number of things boiled together, he says :
" Then dipping wool into this."
P. 254. Speaking of a certain mixture, he says : " After this, having
dipped it into the oil of roses, or Egyptian oil, let it be applied during
the day." In the same page, we have another example : " After supper,
let her eat onions, dipping them into honey."
P. 257. When a blister is too painful to the patient, he orders it
to be taken away ; and " dipping wool into the oil of roses, let her
apply it."
P. 258. " Having boiled nitre with rosin, and forming them into a ball,
dipping it into the fat of a fowl, apply it."
P. 261. "Dipping the ball into white Egyptian oil." "Having
dipped nut-gall into honey, or the gall of a bull into Egyptian oil,
let it be applied." — lb. " Make an oval ball, and dip it into white
oil."— 76.
P. 262. " Then put a fine rag about it, in wool, dipping it into
Egyptian oil." " Dipping (the thing prescribed) into white Egyptian
oil."— lb.
P. 263. " Having rolled a bit of galbanum the size of an olive into a
piece of linen, and having dipped it into cedar-oil."
P. 264. Having prescribed different kinds of flesh to his patients, he
directs, " Cooked without pepper, dipping it into vinegar."
P. 269. Speaking of wool rolled round a quill : " Dip it either in
white oil, or," &c. And within a few lines : " Dip the feather in
vinegar."
P. 273. " Dip the leaden instrument into cold water."
P. 279. " Apply the fat of the deer, melted, dipping soft wool into it."
P. 279. " Dipping wool into ointment."
P. 280. " Put this mixture into clean soft wool, and let her dip it in
white Egyptian oil."
P. 284. " Dipping the unscoured wool in honey."
P. 288. " Form it into a ball, and dip it into some liquid." " Roll
around a quill the gall of a bull, rubbed ; and dipping it into Egyptian
oil, apply it." — lb. " Or cyclaminus, the size of a die, with the flower
of brass : or a head of anemone, bruising it with meal, and putting the
THE MODE OP BAPTISM. 43
mixture into white wool, around a quill, dip it," as directed above. For
cirion, some read elaion ; dip it into ivkite oil: oleo albo intingito. — lb.
P. 289. " Having pounded finely a drachm of the fibres of flax with
the stalks, steep them thoroughly for the night in the sweetest white
wine; then, having strained and warmed it, dip the softest wool in it."
Literally, dip in it with the softest wool; just as we might say dip the
liquor with the wool, instead of dip the wool in the liquor.
P. 290. " Mixing myrrh and rosin together, and putting them in wine,
dip a piece of linen in the mixture, and apply it."
De Steril. p. 292. " Dip the probe in the unguent."
P. 293. " Working them into a little ball, roll it in wool, except the
top ; then having dipped it in the sweetest oil, apply it."
P. 297. Speaking of a mixture the size of a nut-gall, he says :
" Dipping it in the ointment of fieur-de-luce."
P. 299. " Taking lead and the magnetic stone, rub them smooth, and
tie them in a rag ; then having dipped them in breast milk, apply them."
" Dipping unwashed wool into honey." — lb.
De Morb. Pass. Grass, p. 339. Speaking of a shoemaker who was
killed by the prick of his awl in the thigh, he says, " The instrument
dipped about a finger's length."
P. 362. " Dipping sponges."
De Ratione Victus Acutorum, p. 333. " Dipping hot cakes in black
wine and oil."
Coacae Pra3cognitiones, p. 435. " If a livid blister rise on the tongue
at the beginning, as of iron dipped in oil, the cure becomes the more
difficult."
De Ulceribus, p. 514. " The other things being the same ; but in
place of the wine, take the strongest vinegar of white wine. Dip into
this the most greasy wool." " Dip the wool in the smallest quantity of
water possible ; then pouring into it of wine a third part, boil it to a
good thickness." — lb.
P. 522. " Dipping the raw liver of an ox in honey."
Thus we have seen in what a vast multitude of examples Hippocrates
uses this word to signify to dip ; and that quite irrespectively of the
nature of the fluid. Indeed, he not only uses it so frequently in this
signification, but he uses it in no other signification, except once in the
sense of to dye ; and it is the only word which he employs to denote
the mode in question : for I have intentionally omitted no instance in
which the word occurs in all his works. Besides, we have in this wri-
ter the words which signify every application of water, and other fluids,
from the gentle distillation from the nipple, to the bathing of the whole
body. He uses raino, aioneo, &c, for sprinkle, and for pour he uses cheo
with its compounds, which occurs times innumerable. For wet, moisten,
soak, steep, he uses deuo, brecho, teggo, &c. : the first of which meets us
in almost every page ; the second is often used ; and of the last there
are several examples. For bathing the whole body, he constantly uses
louo, and he makes a very free use of the bath, both hot and cold : for
washing a part of the body, he uses nipto, with its compounds ; and
occasionally the compounds of pluno. If it is possible to settle the
44 THE MODE OP BAPTISM.
meaning of a common word, surely this is sufficient to fix the meaning
oibapto beyond all reasonable controversy. In the works of the father of
medicine, in which he has occasion to treat of every mode of the applica-
tion of liquids, and which consist of no less than five hundred and forty-
three closely printed folio pages, all the tvords of mode are applied, and
bapto invariably is used when he designates immersion.
Section VI. — Having established the meaning of this word, as signi-
ficant of mode, I shall now show that it signifies also to dye. That it has
this signification, I believe, is not doubted by any. But while one party
contends that this is its primary signification, the other errs as far on
the opposite side ; contending that this meaning is only by consequence,
and that the word, when it relates to dyeing, always denotes dyeing by
dipping, as the mode. Now, while I contend that dyeing is the secon-
dary meaning of this word, I contend also that this is a real literal mean-
ing, independent of consequence. Although this meaning arose from
the mode of dyeing by dipping, yet the word has come by appropriation
to denote dyeing, without reference to mode. Were this a point of
mere philological accuracy, I would pursue it no farther ; but as it is of
material importance in this controversy, I shall establish it by a number
of examples that will put the fact beyond question. One truth can
never injure another ; and if it has the appearance of doing so, we may
depend that there is something about the matter which we do not under-
stand. The advocates of truth often labour in the proof of what cannot
be proved, the proof of which their cause does not require, and which
sometimes would be injurious rather than profitable. That bapto signi-
fies to dye in any manner, is a truth which, instead of being against us,
serves to solve difficulties that have been very clumsily got over by some
of the ablest writers on this side of the question. Indeed, one of the
most plausible objections is by this fact removed to a demonstration.
Nothing, in the history of words, is more common than to enlarge or
diminish their signification. Ideas not originally included in them are
often affixed to some words, while others drop ideas originally asserted
in their application. In this way, bapto, from signifying mere mode,
came to be applied to a certain operation usually performed in that mode.
From signifying to dip, it came to signify to dye by dipping, because
this was the way in which things were usually dyed. And afterwards,
from dyeing by dipping, it came to denote dyeing in any manner. A
like process might be shown in the history of a thousand other words.
Candlestick originally denoted a stick to hold a candle, but now the utensil
employed to hold a candle is called a candlestick, even when it is of gold.
The only instance in which I have observed the word bapto in this
signification, in the works of Hippocrates, he employs it to denote dyeing
by dropping the dyeing liquid on the thing dyed: " When it drops upon
the garments, they are dyed." This surely is not dyeing by dipping.
There is a similar instance in Arrian's Expedition of Alexander the
Great, the only one in which I have found the word at all in that work.
" Nearchus relates that the Indians dye their beards." It will not be
contended that they dyed their beards by immersion.
THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 45
We meet this word, or its derivatives, several times in JEWaxi, in the
sense of dyeing, and sometimes when the process was not by dipping.
Speaking of an old coxcomb, who endeavoured to conceal his age by
dyeing his hair, he says, " He endeavoured to conceal the hoariness of
his hair by dyeing it." Baphe here denotes dyeing in general ; for hair
on the head is not dyed by dipping. In the title of this anecdote, the
old man is styled : " The old man with the dyed hair." Lib. vii. c. xx.
Speaking of a lady whose yellow locks were not coloured by art, but
by nature, he uses the word baphsais. Lib. xiii. c. i.
Nicolas of Damascus, speaking of parasites as obliged to flatter their
patrons, says, " Does a patron affect to be younger than he is? or does
he even dye his hair V
iEschylus, in the Choephorae, p. 85, uses the word in the same way :
"This garment, dyed by the sword of ^Egisthus, is a witness to me."
The garment must have been dyed by the blood running down over it.
These examples are sufficient to prove, that the word bapto signifies
to dye in general, though originally and still usually applied to dyeing
by dipping. Having such evidence before my eyes, I could not deny
this to my opponents, even were it a difficulty as to the subject of the
mode of baptism. In a controversialist nothing can compensate for
candour ; and facts ought to be admitted, even when they appear unfa-
vourable. It is an unhallowed ingenuity that strains to give a deceitful
colouring to what cannot be denied, and cannot ultimately serve a good
cause. Truth will be sooner made to appear, and will sooner be received,
if on all sides there is openness and honest dealing, without any attempt
to conceal, or to colour. To force through difficulties, employ insuffi-
cient evidence, refuse admissions that integrity cannot deny, and by
rhetorical artifice cut down whatever opposes, is the part of a religious
gladiator, not of a Christian contending earnestly for Divine institutions.
On the subject of this application of the word bapto, I cannot but
blame some of the most distinguished writers on both sides of the ques-
tion. On the one side, supposing it to be necessary, or at least service-
able, to prove that, when the word relates to dyeing, it is always dyeing
by dipping, they have evidently strained, and have employed false criti-
cism. With respect to the other side, to say nothing of the straining to
squeeze out of the word the several significations of sprinkling, pouring,
washing, wetting, &c, for which there is not any even plausible ground,
the obvious fact, that it signifies dyeing by any process, has been uncri-
tically pressed to prove, that when it relates to the application of pure
water it denotes all modes equally. There is neither candour nor phi-
losophy in such attempts. It manifests little acquaintance with the his-
tory and philosophy of the signification of words. In reality this admitted
fact is nothing in their favour, as it is perfectly agreeable to the history
of the meanings of a numerous class of words. Use is always superior to
etymology as a witness on this subject. A word may come to enlarge
its meanings, so as to lose sight of its origin. This fact must be obvious
to every smatterer in philology. Had it been attended to, Baptists would
have found no necessity to prove that bapto, when it signifies to dye,
always properly signifies to dye by dipping ; and their opponents would
46 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
have seen no advantage from proving, that it signifies dyeing in any man-
ner. The word candlestick applies now as well when the material is gold,
as when it is timber. He would not, however, be worth reasoning with,
who should from this circumstance deny that the name points out the
materials of which candlesticks among the Saxons were originally made.
The observations of Dr. Gale on this subject fall in some degree under
the above censure. "The Grecians," says he, "very frequently apply
the word in all its various forms to the dyer's art, sometimes perhaps
not very properly, but always so as to imply and refer only to its true
natural signification to dip."
What does this learned writer mean when he expresses a doubt of the
propriety of this usage? Does he mean that such an extension of the
meaning of words is in some degree a trespass against the laws of lan-
guage ? But such a usage is in strict accordance with the laws of lan-
guage; and the history of a thousand words sanctions this example.
Language has not logical truth for its standard ; and therefore against
this it cannot trespass. Use is the sole arbiter of language ; and
WHATEVER IS AGREEABLE TO THIS AUTHORITY, STANDS JUSTIFIED BEYOND
impeachment. Candlestick is as properly applied to gold as to timber ;
bapto signifies to dye by sprinkling, as properly as by dipping, though
originally it was confined to the latter.
Nor is he well founded when he asserts, that the word in such appli-
cations always implies and refers to its primary signification only. On
the contrary, I have produced some examples, and he himself has pro-
duced others, in which candour cannot say that there is any such impli-
cation or reference. From such examples it could not be known even
that bapto has the meaning of dip. They relate to dyeing wholly with-
out reference to dipping ; nay, some of them with an expressed reference
to another mode. This is a fact, and were it even against me, I could
not but admit it.
Nor are such applications of the word to be accounted for by metaphor,
as Dr. Gale asserts. They are as literal as the primary meaning. It is
by extension of literal meaning, and not by figure of any kind, that
words come to depart so far from their original signification. The exam-
ples of this kind which Dr. Gale produces, cannot be accounted for by
his philosophy. " Magnes, an old comic poet of Athens, used the Lydian
music, shaved his face, and smeared it over toith tawny washes." Now,
surely baptomenos here has no reference to its primary meaning. Nor
is it used figuratively. The face of the person was rubbed with the wash.
By anything implied or referred to in this example, it coulcTnbt be known
that bapto ever signifies to dip.
Ornis baptos, a coloured bird. This expression is indeed figurative.
But the figure has no reference to dipping, the primary meaning of the
word, but to dyeing. The bird is said to be dyed, though its colours
were natural. By the same figure we should say a painted bird, though
its colours were not conferred by the pencil. This example strongly
confirms my view of the word in Daniel. Here even in the verbal
(baptos) of the very word bapto, we have the same figure which I have
pointed out in the use of the word in the above contested passage. The
THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 47
colours of a bird are said to be dyed, by a beautiful figure founded on like-
ness ; just as, in Daniel, Nebuchadnezzar was said to be immersed in dew,
though literally the dew fell on him. What a Goth should we reckon
the critic who would philosophize on such expressions as painted bird,
on the principle of the objection to dipping as the meaning of the word
in the expression used by Daniel ! " The plumage of the bird," says
the philologist, " is natural, and not conferred by either painter or dyer.
The word painted, therefore, and the word dyed, when applied to birds,
designate properly natural colours. Baptos, therefore, in the expression
used by Aristophanes, does not signify dyed, but denotes colour, whether
artificial or natural." A foreigner, on the same principle, might show
the depth of his philosophy on the phrase painted bird. " Here," says
he, " a bird is said to be painted. Now we know that the colours of a
bird are not given by the pencil, but by the Creator. The proper sense,
then, of the English word painted, is not coloured by the pencil, but
coloured in any way." This might appear to have great depth and
justness to people as little acquainted with the language as himself,
and who should not venture to dip into the philosophy of the criticism.
But a mere child who speaks English would laugh at it. Yet it is the
very criticism employed by celebrated scholars on the passage in Daniel.
If theologians had as much taste as they have ingenuity and learning, it
would save themselves and their readers an immensity of useless labour.
The pictcB volucres of Virgil is a perfectly similar example in the Latin
language. Aristophanes speaks of dyed birds, Virgil of painted birds.
Let the criticism on the passage in Daniel be applied to the phrase of
Virgil. " Here," says the critic, " instead of colours laid on by the
pencil of the painter, the colour is given by the invisible hand of nature
Pictce, then, cannot signify painted, or have any allusion to painting, but
must denote properly natural colouring." This is the very essence of the
criticism on the passage in Daniel. Nebuchadnezzar, they say, was not
immersed in dew, — therefore the word bapto must here signify the
distillation of dew.
Our own Milton uses the same figure when, speaking of the wings of
the angel Raphael, he says, colours dipped in heaven, though he does not
mean that they were either dipped or dyed. The foreigner, who, from
this authority, should argue that the English word dip does not signify
the mode which we understand by it, would find his justification in the
criticism on the above passage in the book of Daniel.
Dr. Gale gives us another passage from Aristotle, which is as little to
his purpose, namely, to prove that the word, when it signifies to dye, has
always a reference to dipping, and implies it. " If it is pressed, it dyes
and colours the hand." Surely there is no reference to dipping here ;
the hand is dyed by pressing the thing that dyes. Here, also, the
critical eye will see a confirmation of my view of the principle that
operates in the application of the word bapto in the passage of the book
of Daniel. Things are said to be dyed by nature, on the same principle
that Nebuchadnezzar was said to be immersed in dew.
Having found, beyond reasonable doubt, that bapto, in its secondary
sense, is employed literally and properly to denote dyeing, even when
48 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
there is no dipping, we are now prepared to examine the occurrence of
the word in the Battle of the Frogs and Mice, which has been so obsti-
nately contested; and which hitherto has been the most plausible
resource of those who have laboured to prove that at least one of the
meanings of the word is to pour. The blood was poured into the lake,
therefore it is thought bapto must signify to pour. But in reality, the
passage favours neither the one party nor the other. It expresses neither
pouring nor dipping, but dyeing, without reference to mode. If bapto,
as we have proved, signifies to dye in any mode, there is no occasion for
the advocates of immersion in baptism to find immersion in the word,
as it signifies to dye. This simple fact settles the controversy about this
passage forever.
" He fell, and breathed no more, and the lake was tinged with blood ;"
or, according to the translation of Cowper,
" So fell Crombophagus, and from that fall
Never arose, but reddening with his blood
The wave," &c.
To suppose that there is here any extravagant allusion to the literal
immersion or dipping of a lake, is a monstrous perversion of taste. The
lake is said to be dyed, not to be dipped, nor poured, nor sprinkled.
There is in the word no reference to mode. Had Baptists entrenched
themselves here, they would have saved themselves much useless toil,
and much false criticism, without straining to the impeachment of their
candour, or their taste. What a monstrous paradox in rhetoric is the
figuring of the dipping of a lake in the blood of a mouse ! Yet Dr.
Gale supposes the lake dipped by hyperbole. "The literal sense," he
says, " is, the lake was dipped in blood." Never was there such a figure.
The lake is not said to be dipped in blood, but to be dyed with blood.
They might have found a better commentary to this passage in the
battles of Homer's heroes in the Iliad. The expression evidently alludes
to one in the beginning of the twenty-first book of the Iliad, with
respect to the slaughter of the Trojans by Achilles in the river Xanthus :
"The waters as they ran reddened with blood."— Cowper.
In allusion to this, in the burlesque poem, from which the disputed pas-
sage is taken, the whole lake is said to be dyed with the blood of a mouse,
which fell in battle on its edge.
The monthly reviewers, as quoted by Mr. Booth, understood the
expression in this paradoxical sense. " In a poem attributed to Homer,"
they say, " called the Battle of the Frogs and Mice, it is said a lake was
baptized with the blood of a wounded combatant — a question hath arisen
in what sense the word baptize can be used in this passage." This
should never have been a question ; for this lake is not said to be bap-
tized. The word bapto, not baptizo, is used. Again, the lake was not
dipped, as these friends of dipping, or at least of profuse pouring, assert.
The expression is literal, and has not the smallest difficulty.
Section VII. — The derivatives of this word, both in the primary and
secondary meaning, prove that it denotes immersion. Bamma, sauce or
THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 49
soup into which bread or other food is dipped in eating ; also a dye into
which the thing to be dyed is dipped, as distinguished from chroma.
Baphe, immersion, &c, Soph, in Ajace : "I who endured horrible
things, as iron dipped in water." Baphe siderou is also used for the
edge of iron ; because the edge, or sharpness, is given in the tempering
by immersion in water.
Bapsis, the act of dipping : as bapsis chalkou kai siderou, the temper-
ing of brass and iron ; quoted by Scapula from Pol. ex Antiphonte. Now
metal is tempered in water by immersion.
Baptisis, a laver, or bathing place, used by Lucian.
Dibaphos, dyed by being twice dipped; just as dyers with us speak
of giving their cloth one dip, or two or three dips.
Oxubaphos, oxubaphon, and oxubaphion, quoted by Scapula from
Athen. lib. ii. : the small vessel which was used to hold the vinegar with
tchich they seasoned their food. This the ancients did by dipping. To
this, doubtless, our word saucer owes its origin, however differently it is
used at present. This is an instance of the process by which words extend
their signification beyond the ideas originally contained in them. The
word saucer, from signifying a small vessel for holding sauce, now signifies
one for cooling tea. This is a fine illustration of the process by which
bapto, from signifying to dip, came to signify to dye by dipping, and at
last dropping the mode, to dye in any manner. The foreigner who should
allege that the English word saucer cannot signify a small vessel for tea,
but must always denote one for sauce, would reason as correctly as those
who attempt to force bapto, when signifying to dye, always to look back
to its origin.
This compound, mentioned above, is also used as the name of a
measure, doubtless because this vessel was at first used as the measure
of the quantity so designated. At last, however, it would come by a
natural process to denote the measure, without any reference to the
vessel.
In medical language, this compound was also applied to the deep
cavities or cups in which bones turn in the joints — doubtless taking the
name from the shape. Here the socket of a joint is called a vinegar cup.
Opsobaphon, taken also by Scapula from Poll. lib. vii. denotes the
small vessel in which these things were served up, which were eaten
with bread, and which were always used by dipping. Xenophon repre-
sents the hands of the king of Media, as smeared in this operation.
The verbal baptos, to be dipped, or that may be dipped, we have al-
ready seen in the passage quoted from Euripides in justification of the
translation of a passage in Hippocrates. The negative abaptos may also
be alleged as confirmatory of the application of the root in the sense of
dipping. Abaptos sideros is untempered iron, literally undipped iron, for
iron is tempered by dipping.
Abaptistos also signifies that cannot be immersed, and is applied by
Pindar, as Scapula observes, to cork. This fact is perfectly decisive.
There can be no doubt that the property of cork, not to sink in water,
is referred to by Pindar.
Abaptiston, a trepan, a surgical instrument, so called because it was
7
50 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
so formed as not to sink too deeply, lest it should injure the membrane
of the brain. This shows that the word from which it is derived signifies
to dip.
In ascertaining the meaning of bapto, it may be of assistance to us to
examine also some of its compounds, and also the prepositions with
which it is construed. In composition, we find it sometimes joined with
prepositions that point to the meaning for which we contend, and which
will not suit the meaning attached to it by our opponents. Besides, it
admits no preposition in composition or construction with it, which
cannot be accounted for on the supposition of this meaning. If this
position can be made good, it will afford the strongest confirmation to
our doctrines.
We have seen, in the numerous examples quoted, that it admits both
the prepositions eis and en to be compounded with it, as well as to con-
strue with it in regimen. A mere glance at the examples may convince
any one that this would not suit either pour or sprinkle, from the con-
sideration of the things which are the subjects of the operation of the
verb. We could not, for instance, say, pour or sprinkle wool in or into
the river. If, then, the word signified pour or sprinkle, it could not
admit these prepositions either in composition or in regimen, with
respect to many things that are the subject of the operation of the verb.
Both the prepositions eis and en, in composition with this word, have
the same form. Embapto is the compound word with respect to both.
The regimen, however, is different. If em is put for eis, the verb is
construed with the accusative of the thing in which the operation of the
verb is performed, either without, or more generally with the preposition
itself repeated before it. Embapto eis to udor. When em is put for en,
the verb is construed with the dative of the thing in which the operation
of the verb is performed, either with the same preposition repeated
before it, or without it. — Embapto en to elaio.
When eis is used either in the compound or before the substantive,
there can be no question that all idea of pouring or sprinkling is excluded.
And though en may sometimes be translated with, it never has this
acceptation in composition. Indeed, this form is so decisive, that the
celebrated Dr. Owen asserts, that it is this that makes the verb signify
to dip. " Baptizo, says he, " does not signify properly to dip or plunge,
for that, in Greek, is embapto and embaptizo." This observation is not
worthy of the learning of that great and good man. If the verb bapto
did not of itself signify to dip, the preposition in question could not give
it that meaning. Dr. Owen's criticism is well exposed by the cool good
sense of Mr. Booth. " Besides," says he, " I appeal to the learned
whether Dr. Owen might not as well have asserted, that mergo does not
properly signify to dip or plunge, for that, in Latin, is immergo ? Nay,
does not the Dr. himself, in the same discourse, acknowledge, that ■ the
original and natural signification of the word imports to dip, to plunge,
to dye, to wash, to cleanse V "
Embamma signifies sauce, or any liquid into which food is dipped in
order to be eaten — something to be dipped into. This compound could
not suit either pouring or sprinkling. Embaphion, a saucer or vessel
THE MODE OP BAPTISM. 51
to hold the liquid for seasoning food, which was used by dipping. It
came also to denote a certain measure, — no doubt from the circumstance
that this vessel was employed as a measure. In this sense, Hippocrates
uses it several times.
Katabapto signifies, literally, to dip dozen, that is, to dip deeply, or
thoroughly. The preposition is designed to increase the action of the
verb. Accordingly, katabapton signifies a dyer.
Epibapto, to dip upon. We find this compound once used by Hippo-
crates, and, although it affords us no evidence, it takes none from us.
The use of apo with this word may appear more strange, but it is
explicable. It is used both in composition and following the verb; and
sometimes it is used in composition when eis follows the verb. Apobapto
appears to designate to dip, as intimating the departure of the thing
dipped from the thing in which it is dipped. When apo follows bapto,
it respects the point from which the finished dipping has proceeded.
Bapto apo tou aimatos. I dip it from the blood. The blood is the point
from which the thing dipped proceeded, after the operation.
The preposition ek is also construed with apobapto, in one of the
examples taken from Hippocrates. This makes it still more evident,
that apo, in construction with this verb, denotes the point from which
the dipping was effected. Ek views the thing dipped as proceeding
out of the thing in which it was dipped.
Scapula seems to think that apo in composition with this word, is
designed to intimate the gentleness of the operation, as he translates it,
immergo leniter, I dip gently ; and refers to Dioscorides, lib. v. apo-
bapsai eis udor.
But though it may be used with respect to the gentlest dipping, it
cannot intimate this. But whatever may be the peculiar effect of this
preposition in composition with bapto, and on whatever principle its use
is to be accounted for, the fact that the compounded word is sometimes
used in construction with eis, removes all appearance of objection to our
view of the meaning of the verb.
Section VIII. — Let us now take a glance at a few passages in which
bapto is used figuratively, as this also may cast some light back upon its
literal meaning. Aristophanes says : " Lest I dip you into a Sardinian
dye." The figure is but low, and is just the same as if a pugilist with
us should say, I will dip you in vermilion. It is an allusion to the dyer's
art, and means, I will beat you, till you shall be covered all over xoithyour
own blood. It would be to no purpose to allege, that, when a man is
beaten, he is not literally dipped in his blood, but the blood runs over
him. This would indicate a total misconception of the figure. The
likeness does not consist in the manner, but in the effects. As the refer-
ence is to the art of dyeing, so the expression must be suited to the usual
mode of dyeing. J will dip you in vermilion, is exactly the expression
of the poet in English. He would be a sorry critic, who, from this,
should allege that the English word dip signifies to run over, as blood
from the wounded body. In fact, pour and sprinkle are as little appli-
cable here, in a literal sense, as dip itself. When a man is beaten, there
52 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
is no pouring or sprinkling, more than dipping. The blood is not put on
the beaten person by the beater, in any manner.
Marcus Antoninus Pius speaks of the man of virtue as bebammenon,
dipped or dyed in justice. I would not explain this with Dr. Gale,
" dipped as it were in, or swallowed up with justice." Justice is here
represented as a colouring liquid, which imbues the person who is dipped
in it. It communicates its qualities as in the operation of dyeing. The
figure can receive no illustration from the circumstance, that " persons
given up to their pleasures and vices, are said to be immersed or swal-
lowed up with pleasures." The last figure has a reference to the
primary meaning of the word bapto, and points to the drowning effects of
liquids ; the former refers to the secondary meaning of the word, and
has its resemblance in the colouring effects of a liquid dye. The vir-
tuous man is dipped to be dyed more deeply with justice ; the vicious
man is drowned or ruined by his immersion. Perfectly similar is the
figure in an observation of the same writer, where he asserts that the
thoughts are tinctured by the mind. We use the word imbue in the
same way. He uses the same word also when the dye injures what it
colours. He cautions against bad example, lest you be infected.
We see, then, that the use of this word in a figurative sense, is not
only always consistent with my view of the meaning of this word, but
that it frequently illustrates its primary import.
Section IX. — That bapto signifies to dip is strongly confirmed by the
circumstance, that dyeing, which it also imports, was usually performed,
both among the Greeks and Romans, by immersion. If the word
originally denoted to dip, it might, by a natural process, come to signify
to dye, which was performed by dipping. But if the word originally
signified to pour or to sprinkle, no process can be supposed by which it
would come to denote to dye. Upon our view, there is a connecting
link which joins these two meanings together, notwithstanding their
great diversity. They are seen by our doctrine as parent and child.
On the view of our opponents there is no relation. The two meanings
cannot have any consanguinity. Now, that dyeing anciently was com-
monly performed by dipping, and that it still is so, admits no reasonable
doubt. Dr. Gale has well observed this, and has given evidence of the
fact, should any be so perverse as to deny it. After producing some
passages, he observes, " I will only observe, you will please to consider
dipping as the only probable and convenient way ; and in every respect
perfectly agreeable to the nature of the thing, as well as to that sense of
the word, which is very considerable. We see it is the only way with
us ; and, which carries the parallel still farther between the ancient
Greeks and us, as they used bapto, we used the word dip, both among
the workmen in the shop, and in ordinary conversation ; for what is
more common than to talk of such or such a thing dipped, meaning in
the dyer's copper, or in some colours?" " Besides it is observable, that
the Grecians made a difference between dye, and other colouring matter.
Thus Plutarch distinguishes between cliromata and bammata ; and Pollux
does the same ; bammata signifying only that sort of colouring-matter
THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 53
into which anything is dipped, according to the sense of the word, as I
see Stephens also has remarked. And there is a passage in Seneca very
clear to this purpose. ' Interest quamdiu macerata est, crassius medica-
mentum an aquatius traxerit, saepius mersa est, et excocta, an semel
tincta.' There is a difference also, hoio long it lies infused; whether the
dye be thick and gross, or ivaterish and faint ; and whether dipped very
often and boiled thoroughly , or only once tinctured. And Phavorinus
and Pollux use, katabapton, which on all hands is allowed most empha-
tically to signify dipping, plunging, immersing , as a synonymous word
for bapton and chronnus, in English, a dyer."
" This makes it necessary to suppose they dyed by dipping ; as well
as another word used by them in these cases, namely, epsein, to boil :
they boiled it in kettles, says Aristotle ; and when the flowers are boiled
long enough together, at length all becomes of a purple."
A most decisive passage to the same purpose, he thus translates from
Plato de Republica, lib. iv. p. 636. " The dyers, ivhen they are about
to dip a quantity of wool, to make it of a purple colour, cull out the
whitest of the fleece, and prepare and wash it ivith a ivorld of trouble,
that it may the better take the grain ; and then they dip it. The dye
of things thus dipped is lasting and unchangeable, and cannot be fetched
out or tarnished, either by fair zcater, or any preparations for the dis-
charging of colours. But things which are not dyed after this manner,
you knoiv what they are ; no matter what dye they are dipped in, they
never look well; without this preparation they take but a nasty colour, and
that is easily washed out too. And thus in like maimer our choosing sol-
diers, and instructing them in music, and those exercises which consist in
agility of body, you must imagine our design is only to make them the
better receive the laws, which are a kind of dye, — that their temper being
formed by a proper discipline, may be fixed and unalterable by terror,
fyc, and their tincture may not be washed out by any medicaments of
the most powerfully expelling nature ; as pleasure, which is stronger to
this effect than any dye, as is likcivise grief , fear, or desire, and the like."
Here is the most complete evidence, that both among the Greeks and
Romans dyeing was usually performed by dipping. Indeed, nothing but
perverseness can make a question of this, though there was no evidence
of the fact from history. There is no other way in which fluids can be
extensively applied in dyeing, but by dipping.
The truth of this fact is not in the least affected by the observation of
Mr. Ewing, that dyeing, staining, and painting were originally similar
operations, having been first suggested by the accidental bruising of
fruits, &-c. Though this were a fact recorded, instead of a conjecture,
it could be of no service on this subject. Arts are not necessarily con-
ducted in the way in which they were originally suggested. Whatever
was the origin of dyeing, dipping was the common way of performing it
as an art. It is the usual mode of performance, and not the accidental
mode of discovery, that could give its name to the art. Dr. Cox's
answer to this objection is quite satisfactory. " In reply to this," says
he, " it might be sufficient to say, that in whatever manner the process
was primarily discovered, the correct meaning of the term which
54 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
expresses it, involves the idea of immersion, and did so at the very period
when the contested words were in colloquial use. Pliny states, • the
Egyptians began by painting on white cloths, with certain drugs, which
in themselves possessed no colour ; but had the property of abstracting
or absorbing colouring matters ; but these cloths were afterwards im-
mersed in a diluted dyeing liquor, of a uniform colour, and yet, when
removed from it soon after, that they were found to be stained with in-
delible colours, differing from one another, according to the nature of
the drugs which had been previously applied to different parts of the
stuff.' In this passage, we are favoured with an intelligible distinction
between painting, immersing (or the art of dyeing), and staining ;. yet
we are required to admit that they were one.
Agreeably to the above view of the connexion between the secondary
meaning of this word and the primary, we have a great number of the
branches which have the same double import, from the same connexion.
Bamma, sauce into which food is dipped, — and a dye into which things
are to be dipped. Baphe, dipping and dyeing stuff, or the tincture
received from dyeing. Baphikos, both dipping and dyeing, — and
baphike, the dyer's art. Baptos, to be dipped, and to be dyed, &c. &c.
In all these, there is no other common idea but mode : this is the link that
connects these two things that are altogether different. If the same word
has the same double meaning in so many of its branches, there must
surely be at the bottom some natural relation between these meanings.
This view of the primary meaning of bapto, and the secondary, is
greatly confirmed by the analogy of other languages. The same primary
and secondary meanings are found in the corresponding word, in many
other languages. The Septuagint translation gives parabapta, in Ezek.
xxiii. 15. The Hebrew, to which this corresponds, signifies dyed rai-
ment. Here we see that the Hebrew, which, as Dr. Gale observes, every
one must own, signifies to dip, is used also for dye. This analogy is
complete, and must arise from the same cause, namely, that among the
Hebrews, as well as the Greeks and Romans, dyeing was commonly
performed by dipping. The same word, in the Chaldee also, as Dr.
Cox has observed, signifies both to dip and to dye.
In the Latin, also, the same word, tingo, signifies to dip and to dye.
To this Mr. Ewing replies, that " Tingo is the Greek teggo, [pron. tengo,~\
which is very properly translated in the Lexicons, madefacio, humido,
mollio ; I moisten, wet, soften, or mollify." That tingo is derived from
teggo is undoubted ; but to assert that it has all the significations of its
parent, and that it has no other, would be as unphilological in theory, as
it is inconsistent with fact. Teggo does not signify to dye; tingo, its
derivative, has this signification. Where did it find it ? Teggo signifies
to moisten, &c. ; tingo has not this signification. I am aware that wash
is given as one of its meanings in the dictionaries, but I have seen as yet
no authority for this from the classical use of the word. Besides, ivash
is not the same as moisten, wet, Slc. I grant, indeed, that the word may
be used when washing, wetting, moistening, softening, &c, is the con-
sequence of the dipping. Still, however, this is not literally contained
in the expression. Though any of these words might be given in certain
THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 55
situations as a translation, yet such a translation would not be literal.
Tingo expresses appropriately dipping and dyeing, and these only.
Indeed, the meaning of tingo is to be learned from its use in the Latin
language, and not from the use of its root in the Greek. When this is
ascertained, then the philologist may look into its origin, to discover a
correspondence. It may be expected that the root will contain some
idea which has been a foundation to its use in the derived language.
But a correspondence in all their meanings would often be looked for in
vain. The derived word often drops every meaning of the root but one,
and takes others that the root never possessed.
Does Mr. Ewing deny that tingo signifies to dip ? If he does, the
classical use of that word will contradict him. The dipping of the sun,
moon, and stars, in the ocean, as we should express it, is in the language
of the Latin poets expressed by tingo. If he does not deny this, his
assertion in the above extract is nothing to his purpose.
If there was any need of authority with respect to the meaning of
tingo, we have it in Tertullian. He understood the Latin language, and
he uses tingo for dip. It is well known that he believed that proper baptism
consisted in three immersions ; and he translated the Greek word by tingo.
The same analogy is recognised by our own language ; and though I
would not say with some, that dip has dye as a secondary signification,
yet in certain circumstances it may have this import by consequence, —
" colours dipped in heaven." Since, then, the analogy of so many lan-
guages connects dipping and dyeing by expressing them by the same
word, why should not the same thing be supposed in the Greek? and
bapto, as it has the secondary meaning of dye, have also the primary
meaning of dip? It may be added, that we have the authority of the
Latin poets, to translate bapto by tingo, in the sense of dipping. As the
Greek poets apply bapto to the setting of a constellation, or its dipping
in the ocean, the Latin poets express the same thing by mcrgo and tingo.
Section X. — Having viewed bapto in every light in which it can assist
us on this subject, I shall now proceed to exhibit the examples of the
occurrence of baptizo itself, which, to the utter exclusion of the root, is
applied to the Christian rite. Bapto, the root, I have shown to possess
two meanings, and two only, io dip and to dye. Baptizo, I have asserted,
has but one signification. It has been formed on the idea of the primary
meaning of the root, and has never admitted the secondary. Now, both
these things have been mistaken by writers on both sides of this contro-
versy. It has been generally taken for granted, that the two words are
equally applicable to baptism ; and that they both equally signify to dye.
Both of them are supposed, in a secondary sense, to signify to wash or
moisten. I do not admit this with respect to either. I have already
proved this with respect to bapto ; the proof is equally strong with
respect to baptizo. My position is, that it always signifies to dip ;
never expressing anything but mode. Now, as I have all the lexico-
graphers and commentators against me in this opinion, it will be neces-
sary to say a word or two with respect to the authority of lexicons.
Many may be startled at the idea of refusing to submit to the unanimous
56 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
authority of lexicons, as an instance of the boldest scepticism. Are
lexicons, it may be said, of no authority 1 Now, I admit that lexicons
are an authority, but they are not an ultimate authority. Lexicographers
have been guided by their own judgment in examining the various pass-
ages in which a word occurs : and it is still competent for every man
to have recourse to the same sources. The meaning of a icord must ulti-
mately he determined by an actual inspection of the passages in which it
occurs, as often as any one chooses to dispute the judgment of the lexi-
cographer. The use of a word, as it occurs in the writers of authority
in the English language, is an appeal that any man is entitled to make
against the decision of Dr. Johnson himself. The practice of a lan-
guage is the House of Lords, which is competent to revise the decisions
of all dictionaries.
But though it is always lawful to appeal from lexicons to the language
itself, it is seldom that there can be any necessity for this, with respect
to the primary meaning of words. Indeed, with respect to the primary
meaning of common words, I can think of no instance in which lexicons
are to be suspected. This is a feature so marked, that any painter can
catch, and faithfully represent. Indeed, I should consider it the most
unreasonable scepticism, to deny that a word has a meaning, which all
lexicons give as its primary meaning. On this point, I have no quarrel
with the lexicons. There is the most complete harmony among them,
in representing dip as the primary meaning ofbapto and baptizo. Except
they had a turn to serve, it is impossible to mistake the primary mean-
ing of a word commonly used. Accordingly, Baptist writers have always
appealed, with the greatest confidence, to the lexicons even of Paedo-
baptist writers. On the contrary, their opponents often take refuge in
a supposed sacred or scriptural use, that they may be screened from the
fire of the lexicons.
It is in giving secondary meanings, in which the lines are not so easily
discovered, that the vision of the lexicographers is to be suspected. Nor
is it with respect to real secondary meanings that they are likely to be
mistaken. Their peculiar error is in giving, as secondary meanings,
what'are not properly meanings at all. The same objection that I have
to lexicons, with respect to this word, I have not with respect to it alone,
but with respect to almost all words to which they assign a great variety
of meanings. I do not exclude Dr. Johnson himself from this censure.
It may appear strange to some, that the most learned men can be
imposed upon in this matter ; and with respect to words which they find
in use in what they read, think that they have meanings which they have
not. But a little consideration of the nature of the mistake will explain
this matter. I admit that the meaning which they take out of the word,
is always implied in the passage where the word occurs. But I deny
that this meaning is expressed by the word. It is always made out by
implication, or in some other way.
To explain this point more clearly, I shall lay down a canon, and by
this I mean a first principle in criticism. That which does not contain
' its own evidence is not entitled to the name of a critical canon. I do
not request my readers to admit my canon. I insist on their submission
THE MODE OP BAPTISM. 57
—let them deny it if they can. My canon is, that in certain situa-
tions, TWO WORDS, OR EVEN SEVERAL WORDS, MAY, WITH EQUAL PRO-
PRIETY, FILL THE SAME PLACE, THOUGH THEY ARE ALL ESSENTIALLY
different in their significations. The physician, for instance, may,
with equal propriety and perspicuity, say either " dip the bread in the
wine," or, "moisten the bread in the wine." Yet this does not import
that dip signifies to moisten, or that moisten signifies to dip. Each of
these words has its own peculiar meaning, which the other does not
possess. Dip the bread does not say moisten the bread, yet it is known
that the object of the dipping is to moisten. Now it is from ignorance
of this principle that lexicographers have given meanings to words which
they do not possess ; and have thereby laid a foundation for evasive
criticism on controverted subjects, with respect to almost all questions.
In Greek it might be said with equal propriety, deusai en oino, or bapsai
en oino, "moisten in wine, or dip in wine;" and from this circumstance
it is rashly and unphilosophically concluded that one of the meanings
of bapto is to moisten.
Let it be remembered that my censure lies against the critical exact-
ness of lexicographers, and not against their integrity, or even their
general learning and ability. I go farther, — I acquit them of misleading
their readers with respect to the general meaning of the passages, on the
authority of which they have falsely assigned such secondary meanings.
The ideas which they affix to such words, are implied in the passage,
though not the meaning of the words out of which they take them. But
this, which is harmless with respect to most cases, is hurtful in all points
of controversy, as it gives a foundation for the evasive ingenuity of
sophistry in the defence of error. It may be of no importance to correct
the lexicographer, who, from finding the expressions deusai en oino and
bapsai en oino employed for the same thing, asserts that here bapsai sig-
nifies to moisten. But it is of great importance when the error is brought
to apply to an ordinance of Christ. Besides, it introduces confusion into
language, and makes the acquisition of it much more difficult to learners.,
The mind must be stored with a number of different meanings in which
there is no real difference. What an insurmountable task would it be
to master a language, if, in reality, words had as many different mean-
ings as lexicons represent them ! Parkhurst gives six meanings to
baptizo. I undertake to prove that it has but one ; yet he and I do not
differ about the primary meaning of this word. I blame him for giving
different meanings, when there is no real difference in the meaning of
this word. He assigns to it figurative meanings. I maintain, that in
figures there is no different meaning of the word. It is only a figurative
application. The meaning of the word is always the same. Nor does
any one need to have a figurative application explained in any other
way, than by giving the proper meaning of the word. When this is
known, it must be a bad figure that does not contain its own light. It
is useless to load lexicons with figurative applications, except as a con-
cordance.
Polybius, vol. iii. p. 311 ult. applies the word to soldiers passing
through water, immersed up to the breast. Here surely the word cannot
8
58 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
mean pouring or sprinkling. The soldiers in passing through the water
were dipped as far as the breast. Strabo also applies the word to Alex-
ander's soldiers marching a whole day through the tide, between the
mountain Climax and the sea, (lib. xiv. p. 982,) baptized up to the
middle. Surely this baptism was immersion.
Plutarch, speaking of a Roman general, dying of his wounds, says,
that having dipped his hand in blood, he wrote the inscription for a
trophy. Here the mode of the action cannot be questioned. The
instrument of writing is dipped in the colouring fluid.
Diodorus Siculus, speaking of the sinking of animals in water, says,
that when the water overflows, " many of the land animals, immersed in
the river, perish." This baptism also is immersion. The whole land
was overwhelmed with water. This itself, upon a principle before ex-
plained, might be called a baptism or immersion, in perfect consistency
with the modal meaning of the word. However, it is not the land, but
the land animals, that are here said to be baptized. These would at
first swim, but they would soon sink, and be entirely immersed. There
is here then no catachrestic extension of the word, as in the cases which
I have illustrated in another place. The sinking of animals in water is
here called baptism. What then is baptism but immersion 1 Upon the
principle of giving secondary meanings to words, which has been resisted
by me, drown might be given as an additional meaning to baptizo, from
the authority of this passage. As the animals were drowned by immer-
sion, this immersion might be called drowning.
Lucian uses the word in a like case, and with circumstances that
explain the former example. Towards the end of the dialogue, he makes
Timon, the man-hater, say, that if he saw a man carried down the
stream, and crying for help, he would baptize him — " If in icinter, the
river should carry away any one with its stream, and the person with
outstretched hands should beg to be taken out, that he should drive him
from the bank, and plunge him headlong, so that he would not be able
again to lift up his head above water." Here is a baptism, the mode of
which cannot be mistaken. Timon's baptism was certainly immersion.
To resist such evidence, requires a hardihood which I do not envy.
Having such examples before my eyes, I cannot resist God, to please
men. To attempt to throw doubt on the meaning of the word baptizo,
is as vain as to question the signification of the word dip. The latter
is not more definitely expressive of mode in the English, than the former
is in Greek. The only circumstance that has enabled men to raise a
cloud about baptizo is, that it belongs to a dead language. There never
was a word in any language, the meaning of which is more definite, or
which is capable of being more clearly ascertained.
The sinner is represented by Porphyry, (p. 282,) as baptized up to
his head, in Styx, a celebrated river in hell. Is there any question
about the mode of this baptism ?
Dr. Gale gives some striking examples from Strabo. " Strabo," says
he, " is very plain in several instances : Speaking of the lake near
Agrigentum, a town on the south shore of Sicily, now called Gergenti,
he says, things which otherwise will not swim, do not sink in the ivater of
THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 59
the lake, but float like wood. And there is a rivulet in the south parts
of Cappadocia, he tells us, whose tcaters are so buoyant, that if an ar-
row is thrown in, it will hardly sink or be dipped into them." " In
another place, ascribing the fabulous properties of the asphaltites to
the lake Sirbon, he says, the bitumen floats atop, because of the nature
of the water, which admits no diving ; for if a man goes into it, he can-
not sink, or be dipped, but is forcibly kept above." Now, in these seve-
ral passages, the modal meaning of the word is confirmed in so clear,
express, and decisive a manner, that obstinacy itself cannot find a plau-
sible objection. Things that sink in other water, will not sink or be
baptized in the lake near Agrigentum. This is mode, and nothing but
mode. It is immersion, and nothing but immersion. Sprinkling, and
pouring, and popping, and dropping, and wetting, and washing, and
purifying, and imbuing, and dedicating , and devoting, and consecrating,
with all the various meanings that have ever been forced on this Word,
are meanings invented merely to serve a purpose. And if the sinking
of an arrow in water is called its baptism, what can baptism mean but
immersion ? If, when the buoyancy of water will not suffer a person to
sink, the idea is expressed by baptizo, what can baptism be but an ope-
ration of the same nature with sinking or diving, which are used here
as nearly synonymous terms with that which signifies to baptize? It
may as well be said that sprinkling or pouring, is sinking or diving, as
that it is baptism.
Two Greek critics are quoted by Dr. Gale, as applying the word in
exhibiting the beauty of Homer's representation of the death of one of
his heroes : "He struck him across the neck with his heavy sword, and the
whole sword became warm tcith blood." On this, Pseudo Didymus says,
that the sword is represented as dipped in blood. And Dionysius says,
"In that phrase, Homer expresses himself with the greatest energy, signi-
fying that the sword was so dipped in blood, that it was even heated by it."
" Heraclides Ponticus," says Dr. Gale, " a disciple of Aristotle, may
help us also in fixing the sense of the word; for, moralizing the fable
of Mars being taken by Vulcan, he says, Neptune is ingeniously supposed
to deliver Mars from Vulcan, to signify, that when a piece of iron is ta-
ken red hot out of the fire, and put into water (baptizetai,) the heat is re-
pelled and extinguished, by the contrary nature of water." Here we see
that the immersion of hot iron in water, for the purpose of cooling it, is
denominated a baptism.
Themistius, Orat. IV. p. 133, as quoted by Dr. Gale, says, "The pilot
cannot tell but he may save one in the voyage that had better be drowned,
sunk into the sea." Such a baptism, surely, would be immersion.
The word occurs in the Greek translation of the Old Testament, and
is faithfully rendered dip in our version. 2 Kings, v. 14. Naaman went
down, and dipped himself seven times in Jordan. Here bathing in a river
is called baptism. What more do we want, then, to teach us the mode
of this ordinance of Christ? If there was not another passage of Scrip-
ture to throw light on the institution, as far as respects mode, is not
this, to every teachable mind, perfectly sufficient? But it seems, we
are crying victory before the field is won. This passage, which we
60 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
think so decisive, has a far different aspect to others. On the contrary, it
is made to afford evidence against us. Well, this is strange indeed ; but
ingenuity has many shifts. Let us see how artifice can involve the pas-
sage in a cloud. Nothing is more easy. Does not the prophet command
Naaman to wash ? if, then, he obeyed this command by baptizing him-
self, baptizing must signify washing; For the sake of argument, I will
grant this reasoning, for a moment. If then, this is so, go, my brethren,
and wash the person to be baptized, as you think Naaman washed him-
self, from head to foot. This will show that you respect the example.
In what manner soever the water was applied to Naaman, he was bathed
all over. If the word signifies to wash the whole body, who but the
Pope himself would take on him to substitute the sprinkling of a few
drops, in the place of this universal washing ?
But I do not admit the reasoning, that, from this passage, concludes
that baptizo signifies to wash, although no instance can be produced
more plausible in favour of that opinion. This passage is a complete
illustration of my canon. The two words, louo and baptizo, are here
used interchangeably, yet they are not of the same signification. Not of
the same signification! it may be asked, with surprise. Elisha com-
mands him to wash ; he obeys by baptizing himself; must not baptizing,
then, be icashing? I think none of my opponents will wish a stronger
statement of their objection than I have made for them. But my doctrine
remains uninjured by the assault. The true philologist will not find the
smallest difficulty in reconciling this passage to it. The words louo and
baptizo have their own peculiar meanings even here, as well as every
where else, without the smallest confusion . To baptize is not to ivash ;
but to baptize in a river or in any pure water, implies washing, and may
be used for it in certain situations. If Naaman clipped himself in Jor-
dan, he was washed. It comes to the same thing, whether a physician
says, bathe yourself every morning in the sea, or, dip yourself every morn-
ing in the sea, yet the words bathe and dip do not signify the same thing.
We see, then, that we can make the very same use of our modal word
dip, that the Greeks made of their baptizo. No man who understands
English, will say that the word dip and the word bathe signify the same
thing, yet, in certain situations, they may be used indifferently. Per-
sons at bath may ask each other, did you dip this morning? or did you
bathe this morning? To dip may apply to the defiling of any thing, as
well as to icashing. It expresses no more than the mode. It is the
situation in which it stands, and the word with which it is construed,
that determine the object of the application of the mode. To dip in
pure water, is to wash ; to dip in colouring matter, is to dye ; to dip into
mire, is to defile. None of these ideas, however, are in the word dip
itself. No word could determine mode, according to the principles of
criticism employed by writers on this subject.
The error in this criticism is that which I have before exposed. It
supposes that, if in any circumstances two words can be used inter-
changeably, they must signify the same thing ; and that controversialists
are at liberty to reciprocate their meanings, as often as the necessity of
their cause demands it. This is a source of error more fruitful in false
THE MODE OP BAPTISM. 61
criticism, than any other of its numerous resources. There is a spe-
ciousness in it that has imposed on lexicographers, critics, and com-
mentators. They have universally, so far as I know, taken as a first
principle, that which is a mere figment.
The Sibylline verse concerning the city of Athens, quoted by Plutarch
in his Life of Theseus, most exactly determines the meaning of baptizo.
" Thou mayest be dipped, O bladder ! but thou art not fated to sink."
The remark of Vossius and Turretine upon this is : " Hence it ap
pears that baptizein is more than cpipolazein, which is to swim lightly
on the surface, and less than dunein, which is to go down to the bottom,
so as to be destroyed." In the latter part of this distinction, they are
certainly mistaken, as to both verbs. Baptizein may be applied to what
goes to the bottom and perishes ; and dunein very frequently applies to
things that sink without destruction. It is the usual word applied to
the setting of the sun, or its apparent sinking in the ocean ; and it is
the word which Homer applies to the sinking of the marine deities who
live in the bottom of the sea. Indeed, the word has no more destruc-
tion in it than baptizo itself, which is occasionally applied to the sink-
ing of ships. The matter of fact is, that whether the sinking object is
destroyed or not, is learned from neither word, but from the circum-
stances in which it is used. If baptizein is applied to a ship going to
the bottom, its destruction is known without being expressed by this
word : if dunein is applied to Neptune, Thetis, or a sea nymph, it is in
the same way known that there is no destruction. The obvious and
characteristic distinction between the words is, that dunein is a neuter
verb, signifying to sink, not to cause something else to sink. But a
thing that sinks of itself, will doubtless sink to the bottom, if not pre-
vented ; and if it is subject to destruction by such sinking, it will perish.
It is therefore characteristically applied to things that sink to the bottom.
But baptizein signifies merely to dip, without respect to depth or conse-
quence, and is as proper to the immersion of an insect on the surface
of the deepest part of the ocean, as to the sinking of a ship or a whale
in the same. Both words might in many cases be applied to the same
thing indifferently, but in their characteristic meaning, as in the above
verse, they are opposed. The expression in this verse is allegorical,
literally referring to a bladder or leathern bottle, which, when empty,
swims on the surface : if sufficiently filled, will dip, but will not sink.
In this view, it asserts that the Athenian state, though it might be occa-
sionally overwhelmed with calamities, yet would never perish. There is
another sense which the expression might have, which is very suitable
to the ambiguity of an oracle. " You may yourselves destroy the state,
otherwise it is imperishable." A leathern bottle might be so filled as
to force it to the bottom, though it would never sink of itself. Nothing
can more decisively determine the exact characteristic import of bap~
tizein, than this verse. It is dip, and nothing but dip.
Mr. Ewing's learned friend, in remarking on this word, falls into an
error opposite to that of Vossius and Turretine. They make the word
denote to dip, without going to the bottom : he makes it to dip, so as to
62 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
continue under water. " Our Anti-psedo-baptist friends," says, he, " when
they contend, that from the examples adduced by them, immersion is the
only sense in which baptizo, in its literal acceptation, was employed,
do not seem aware that almost all of these examples imply not a mere
dipping, or immersion immediately followed by an emersion, but a con-
tinued and permanent immersion, a continuance under water." Now
upon this I remark, first, that if there is one example in which it applies
to an immersion, followed by an emersion, it is as good as a thousand
to determine that it may apply to such immersions. I observe in the
second place, that not one of the examples implies a continuance under
water. When the word is applied to a drowning man or a sinking ship,
it no more implies the permanence of the immersion, than when Plu-
tarch uses it to signify the dipping of the hand in blood. The word
has no reference to what follows the immersion ; and whether the thing
immersed lies at the bottom, or is taken up, cannot be learned from the
word, but from the connexion and circumstances. It is a childish error
to suppose, that we must have a model for Christian baptism in the
meaning of the word that designates it. But if this argument had any
foundation, what does the gentleman mean by it? Does he think that
baptized persons ought to be drowned ? This is surely very perverse.
When it cannot be denied that the word denotes to dip, they endea-
vour to make it more than dipping. Then by all means let them
have baptism in their own way. When we have brought them
under the water, perhaps they will not make conscience of lying at the
bottom.
The example referred to by Hammond is also irresistible. It is said of
Eupolis, that being thrown into the sea, he was baptized. This baptism
surely was immersion. This example shows us also, that the word may
be applied when the object is destroyed, as well as when it is raised
again out of the water, though in general, things dipped are taken imme-
diately up after the dipping. The baptism spoken of by Plutarch, must
also be immersion, — Baptize yourself into the sea.
The expression quoted by Hedericus from Heliod. b. v. is equally
decisive, to baptize into the lake. And that from ^Esop, the ship being
in danger of sinking. If a ship sinking in the ocean is baptized, bap-
tism must be immersion.
But the language of no writer can have more authority on this sub-
ject than that of Josephus. A Jew who wrote in the Greek language
in the apostolic age, must be the best judge of the meaning of Greek
words employed by Jews in his own time. Now this author uses the
word frequently, and always in the sense of immersion. He uses it
also sometimes figuratively with the same literal reference. Speaking
of the purification from defilement by a dead body, he says, " and hav-
ing dipped some of the ashes into spring water, they sprinkled," &,c.
Here we see the characteristic distinction between baptizo and raino.
The one is to dip, the other to sprinkle. Antiq. 1. iv. c. 4, p. 96.
On this example, Mr. Ewing's friend remarks : — " Now, upon looking
into the Levitical law upon this particular point, (Numb. xix. \1,) we
find the direction was, ' They shall take of the ashes, and running tcattr
THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 63
shall be put thereto.' Here, then, the putting running water to ashes, is
expressly termed baptisantes tes nephras." Let the gentleman look a little
more closely, and he will see that his observation is not correct. It is
true that Numb. xix. 17, and the above passage from Josephus, refer to
the same thing ; but they do not relate it in the same manner. The
Septuagint directs, that water shall be poured upon the ashes into a
vessel ; Josephus relates the fact as if the ashes were thrown into the
water. Now this might make no difference as to the water of purifica-
tion, but it was a difference as to the mode of preparing it. Nothing,
then, can be farther from truth, than that the putting of the water on
the ashes, according to Numb. xix. 17, is called by Josephus, the bap-
tizing of the ashes. If Josephus speaks of the baptizing of the ashes, he
represents the ashes as being put into the water, and not the water as
being poured on the ashes. He uses the verb enicmi as well as baptizo.
According to Josephus, then, the ashes were dipped, or put into the
water ; though, according to the Septuagint, the water was poured out
into a vessel on the ashes.
Speaking of the storm that threatened destruction to the ship that
carried Jonah, he says, " when the ship was on the point of sinking, or
just about to be baptized." — 1. ix. c. 10, p. 285. What was the mode of
this baptism?
In the history of his own life, Josephus gives an account of a remark-
able escape which he had in a voyage to Rome, when the ship itself
foundered in the midst of the sea : " For our ship having been baptized
or immersed in the midst of the Adriatic sea," &c. Is there any doubt
about the mode of this baptism ? p. 626.
Speaking of the murder of Aristobulus, by command of Herod, he
says, " The boy was sent to Jericho by night, and there, by command,
having been immersed in a pond by the Galatians, he perished." Jewish
War, Book I. p. 696. The same transaction is related in the Antiqui-
ties in these words : " Pressing him down always, as he was swim-
ming, and baptizing him as in sport, they did not give over till they
entirely drowned him." Can anything be more express and exact than
this? Here the baptizers drowned the baptized person in the pool,
where they were bathing, p. 458.
Describing the death of one Simon by his own hand, after he had
killed his father, mother, wife, and children, lest they should fall into the
hands of the enemy, he says, " He baptized or plunged his sword up to
the hilt into his own bowels." The mode here is not doubtful ; the sword
was dipped in his body. We have previously seen bapto used in like
circumstances, and ebapse would have been equally proper here, accord-
ing to the observation already made, that words which have a charac-
teristic distinction, may, in certain situations, be interchangeable.
Ebaptise, he caused it to dip, may denote a greater effort than ebapse,
dipped it. Jos. Bell. Jud. 1. ii. p. 752.
A little afterwards, he applies the word to the sinking of a ship :
" After this misfortune of Cestius, many of the Jews of distinction left
the city, as people swim away from a sinking ship." Here a sinking
ship is supposed to be baptized by sinking, p. 757.
64 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
He applies the word to the immersion of the ships which carried the
people of Joppa, after being driven out of the city by the Romans :
" The wave high raised, baptized them." Here is a sublime baptism.
The surge, rising like mountains over the ships, immersed and sunk
them to the bottom. The surge is the baptizer, the ships are baptized,
and this baptism is the sinking of them to the bottom. Joseph. Jewish
War, Book III. p. 737.
Towards the end of the same book, he thus speaks of those who
perished in the lake of Gennesareth, having fled from the city of Tarichae :
" They were baptized or sunk with the ships themselves, p. 792. Here
the Roman soldiers were the baptizers ; and in executing this duty, they
sunk both ships and men.
Hippocrates uses this word sometimes, and always in the sense for
which I contend. We have seen that he uses bapto very often : I have
not found baptizo more than four times. This circumstance sufficiently
proves, that though the words are so nearly related, they are not per-
fectly identical in signification. The first occurrence of it is in p. 254 :
" Dip it again in breast-milk and Egyptian ointment." He is speaking
of a blister which was first to be dipped in the oil of roses, and if when
thus applied, it should be too painful, it was to be dipped again in the
manner above stated. The first dipping, as we have seen from a pre-
ceding quotation, is expressed by bapsas. This shows that, in the
radical signification of dipping, these words are perfectly of the same
import ; and that though they have their characteristic distinction, there
are situations in which they are interchangeable, where the character-
istic difference may be expressed, but it is not necessary.
The same writer gives us the clearest insight into the meaning of this
word, by twice comparing a peculiar kind of breathing in patients, to
the breathing of a person after being immersed : " He breathed as per-
sons breathe after being baptized." p. 340. The same comparison
occurs again, p. 357, in the following words : " He breathed as persons
breathe after being baptized." Surely unbelief must be obstinate, if
this does not remove it. The breathing of persons under the disease
referred to, is like the breathing of a person after baptism. Can any-
thing, then, be more obvious, than that baptism is an immersion in wa-
ter, even an immersion over head, so as to stop the breath till it is over 1
Hippocrates applies the word also to a ship sinking, by being over-
burthened : " Shall I not laugh at the man who baptizes or immerses
his ship, by overlading it ; then complains of the sea, that it ingulfs
it with its cargo?" p. 532. What sort of baptism was this? Is it
possible that a mind really thirsting for the knowledge of God's laws,
can resist such evidence ? Here we see baptizo not. only most definitely
signifying to immerse, but contrasted with another word, which signifies
this with additional circumstances. Baptizo is used to denote that
immersion that takes place when a ship is weighed down by its burthen,
so as to be completely under water : katabutliizo signifies to make to go
down into the abyss. Yet we have more than once met with instances
in which baptizo itself is applied to a ship going to the bottom. But as
I observed in such cases, it is not from the word itself that it is known
THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 65
that the ship goes to the bottom, but from the circumstances. It does
not, by virtue of its own intrinsic meaning, denote going to the bottom,
but to dip or immerse, without reference to depth. It may, then, be
applied when the operation is extended to the bottom, as well as when
it is confined to the surface. But when it is so applied, it does not
definitely distinguish the idea of depth. When this is intended to be
expressed, another word, as in the present case, is employed : katabu-
thizo definitely expresses going down into the abyss.
This word is found in Polybius, in circumstances that leave no doubt
of its signification. He applies it to soldiers wading through deep wa-
ter, and expressly limits its application to that part of the body which
was covered with water : " The foot soldiers passed with difficulty,
baptized or immersed up to the breast." Polyb. iii. c. 72. Does not this
decisively determine the meaning ofbaptizo? They were not, indeed,
plunged over head ; but for this reason, a limitation is introduced, con-
fining the application of the word to that part of the body which was
under water. That only was baptized which was buried.
The same author gives us another example equally decisive : " They
are of themselves baptized or immersed, and sunk in the marshes."
v. c. 47. Here baptizomai is coupled with Icataduno, as a word of similar
import, though not exactly synonymous : the former denoting simple
immersion ; the latter, the sinking of the immersed object to the bottom.
Dio also affords evidence decisive of the same meaning : " They are
entirely baptized, sunk, overwhelmed, or immersed." xxxviii. p. 84.
He applies it, as we have seen it employed by others, to the sinking
of ships : " So great a storm suddenly arose through the whole country,
that the boats were baptized or sunk in the Tiber." xxxvii. What,
then, is baptism but immersion?
He applies it in the same way, I. 492 : " How could it escape sinki?ig,
from the very multitude of rowers?" We see, then, that the classical
writers in the Greek language, without exception, know nothing of this
word in any other signification than that of immersing. They never
apply it to any other mode. They no more apply it to pouring or
sprinkling, &c. than to rearming or cooling. Such significations have
been conjured up by profane ingenuity, endeavouring to force the words
of the Spirit of God into agreement with the long-established practices
of men, in perverting the ordinances of God.
Porphyry applies the word to the heathen opinion of the baptism of
the wicked in Styx, the famous lake of hell : " When the accused person
enters the lake, if he is innocent, he passes boldly through, having the
water up to his knees ; but if guilty, having advanced a little, he is
plunged or baptized up to the head." — De Styge, p. 282. The baptism
of Styx, then, is an immersion of the body up to the head. The part
not dipped is expressly excepted.
Diodorus Siculus applies the word to the sinking of beasts carried
away by a river : " The most of the land animals being caught by the
river, sinking or being baptized, perish ; but some escaping to the higher
grounds, are saved." — I. p. 33. Here to be baptized, is to sink in water.
This example also confirms my observation, that though when sinking to
9
66 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
the bottom, or sinking in the great deep is designed to be distinguished from
simple immersion, baptizo could not suit the situation ; but another word,
such as kataduno, katabuthizo, katapontizo, &x., is used : yet baptizo will
apply to the deepest immersion, and to destruction by immersion, when
there is no contrast, and when the depth and destruction are known
from other words or circumstances in the connexion. Baptizo denotes
simple immersion, yet it may be used in circumstances when that im-
mersion is certainly known to be going to the bottom, and being destroyed.
Section XI. — There are instances in which the word is by some
translated wash, ^md in which the general meaning may be thus well
enough expressed in a free version. Still, however, the word, even in
such situations, does not express the idea of washing, but has its own
peculiar meaning of mode, the idea of washing being only a consequence
from the dipping. There are some cases in which it is pretended that
it must apply to purification by sprinking, &c. Now, as I am pledged
to show that the word does not signify to icash in any manner, I am still
more bound to show that it does not denote purification by sprinkling.
I shall therefore now attend to this part of the subject.
In Ecclesiasticus xxxiv. 30, it is said, " He that washeth himself
because of a dead body, and toucheth it again, what availeth his washing?"
Now as baptizomenos is the word here used, and as from Numb. xix. 18,
we learn that such a person was to be purified by sprinkling, does it
follow that baptizo must signify to sprinkle, or to purify by sprinkling?
He that wishes to see this objection honestly stated in all its strength,
and refuted in the most triumphant manner, may consult Dr. Gale's
Reflections on Dr. Wall's History of Infant Baptism. But the answer
must be obvious to every person who consults Numb. xix. 19, which
shows that sprinkling was but a part of that purification, and that the
unclean person was also bathed in icatcr. It is this bathing that is effected
by baptism. The passage in question ought to be translated, — " He that
dippeth or baptizeth himself because of a dead body, and toucheth it
again, what availeth his dipping or baptism ?" The word baptizo has
here its appropriate meaning, without the smallest deviation.
Besides, had there been no immersion or bathing of the whole body
enjoined in Numbers, I should utterly despise this objection. Though
God had not made bathing of the body a part of this purification, might
not the traditions of the elders have made the addition ? And would not
this have been sufficient authority for the author of this apocryphal
book to make a ground of his reasoning? When I have proved the
meaning of a Greek word, by the authority of the whole consent of
Greek literature, I will not surrender it to the supposition of the strict
adherence of the Jewish nation, in the time of the writing of the
Apocrypha, to the Mosaic ritual. We know that they made many addi-
tions, and that these were esteemed as of equal authority with the rites
of Moses.
For a very full and interesting discussion of Luke xi. 38, and Mark
vii. 4, let the reader consult Dr. Gale, p. 125. Here he will find a
triumphant answer to every quibble from Dr. Wall. But as the text
THE MODE OP BAPTISM. 67
itself is perfectly sufficient for ray purpose, I shall not swell my volume
with quotations from that learned writer. In our version, Luke xi. 38,
ebaptisthe is translated wash. " And when the Pharisee saw it, he mar-
velled that he had not first washed before dinner." The objection is,
does not baptizo, then, sometimes denote to ivash ? Nay, farther, as the
Jews washed the hands by having water poured on them, and as this
passage respects the washing of the hands, is there not here evidence that
the word in question sometimes signifies to wash by pouring ? This surely
is as strong a statement of their objection as our opponents can wish.
Yet, in all its plausibility, I despise it. Even here, the word signifies
to dip, and not to ivash. Dipping is the thing expressed ; washing is the
consequence, known by inference. It is dipping, whether it relates to
the hands or the whole body. But many examples from the Jews, and
also from the Greeks, it is said, prove that the hands were washed by
pouring water on them by a servant ; and I care not that ten thousand
such examples were brought forward. Though this might be the usual
mode of washing the hands, it might not be the only mode, which is
abundantly sufficient for my purpose. The possibility of this is enough
for me ; but Dr. Gale has proved from Dr. Pococke, that the Jews some-
times washed their hands by dipping. People of distinction might have
water poured on their hands by servants, but it is not likely that this
was the common practice of the body of the people, in any nation. The
examples from Homer cannot inform us with respect to the practice of
the common people.
But I say this without any view to my argument in this place, for it
is evident that the word does not here refer to the washing of the hands.
It may apply to any part, as well as to the v/hole ; but whenever it is
used without its regimen expressed, or understood in phrases much
used, it applies to the whole body. When a part only is dipped, the part
is mentioned, or some part is excepted, as is the case with louo. The
passage, then, ought to have been translated, — " And when the Pharisee
saw it, he marvelled that he was not immersed before dinner." The
Pharisees themselves, on some occasions, would not eat till they had
used the bath, and this Pharisee might expect still more eminent devo-
tion from Jesus. Indeed, to use the bath before dinner, was a very
common practice in eastern countries ; and the practice would be still
more in vogue with those who considered it a religious purification. But
there is no need to refer to the practice of the time, nor to ransack the
writings of the Rabbins, for the practice of the Jews. We have here
the authority of the Holy Spirit for the Jewish custom. He uses the
word baptizo, and that word signifies to dip, and only to dip. If I have
established the acceptation of this word by the consent of use, even an
inexplicable difficulty in this case would not affect the certainty of my
conclusions. But the difficulty is not inexplicable. What should hinder
the word to have here its usual import?
Mark vii. 4, our translators render, "except they wash, they eat not."
Now, my opponents may say, does not baptizo here signify to wash? I
answer, No. Dipping is the thing expressed ; but it is used in such
circumstances as to imply loashing. The washing is a consequence from
68 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
the dipping. It ought to have been translated, " except they dip them-
selves, they eat not." In the preceding context, we are told that usually
they do not eat without washing their hands. Here we are told that when
they come from market, they eat not till they are dipped or baptized.
Dr. Campbell's notion, that nipto and baptizo here both refer to the
hands, the one to washing by having water poured on them, and the
other by dipping them, I do not approve. For, though baptizo will apply
to the dipping of the hands, as well as to the dipping of the whole body,
yet when no part is mentioned or excepted, the whole body is always
meant. His view of the matter I consider nothing but an ingenious
conceit, without any authority from the practice of the language. Nipto
cannot denote a peculiar mode of washing, in distinction from another
mode. Besides, to wash anything by mere dipping, is not so thorough
a washing as may be expressed by nipto. Now, if the words both refer
to the washing of the hands, the first will be the best washing, which is
contrary to Dr. Campbell's supposition. Dr. Campbell, indeed, with
Pearce and Wetstein, understands pvgme of a handful of water. But
they produce no example in which pugme has this signification, and
therefore the opinion has no authority. Indeed, there is a self-contra-
diction in the opinion of these learned writers on this point. Pugme
they properly consider as signifying the fist, or 6hut hand ; and from
this, suppose that the word here denotes as much water as may be held
in the hollow of the hand, with the fingers closed. But a fist will hold
no water ; and the hand with the fingers closed so as to hold water, is
no fist. With as little reason can it be supposed to signify, as Dr. Camp-
bell suggests, that pugme denotes the manner of washing, with reference
to the form of the hands when they wash each other. In such circum-
stances, neither of them is a fist, but still less the washing hand. In
this operation the hands infold one another, and if there is anything like
a fist, it is the two hands united. Dr. Campbell quotes, with approba-
tion, the remark of Wetstein : " baptizesthai est modus acquae immergere,
niptesthai manibus affundere." But the former does not signify to dip
the hands, except the regimen is expressed ; and though the latter applies
to pouring water on the hands, it will equally apply to washing out of
a basin. Parkhurst, indeed, translates the phrase ; " to wash the hands
ivith the jist, that is by rubbing water on the palm of one hand, with the
doubled fist of the other." This distinguishes the infolded hand as the
rubbing hand, but, as a matter of fact, I believe that, though both hands
may be said to rub on each other, yet the infolding hand is distinguished
as the rubbing hand. To wash the hand tcith the Jist, is not an expres-
sion which would be likely to be chosen to express the operation of
washing the hands. The palm of one hand is applied to the palm of
the other ; and when the palm of one hand is applied to the back of the
other, the intention is to cleanse the latter, and not by the latter to
cleanse the former. Besides, the inside hand is seldom closed into a
fist. I prefer, therefore, the explanation of Lightfoot, which is both
most agreeable to the meaning of pugme, and to the Jewish traditions.
He understands it as denoting the hand as far as the fist extended. This
is agreeable to the definition of the word by Pollux: " If you shut your
THE MODE OP BAPTISM. 69
hand, the outside is called pugme :" and it is agreeable to the Jewish
traditions, one of which he shows enjoins such a washing. The contrast
then, here, is between the washing of the hands up to the wrist, and the
immersion of the whole body. Dr. Campbell, indeed, remarks, that " it
ought to be observed, that baptisontai is not in the passive voice, but the
middle, and is contrasted with nipsontai, also in the middle ; so that by
every rule, the latter must be understood actively as well as the former."
But though I understand baptisontai in the middle voice, I do not ac-
knowledge that this is necessarily required from a contrast with nipson-
tai. Let the meaning of this passage be what it will, the active, passive,
and middle voices, might be so associated. I know no rule that requires
such a conformity as Dr. Campbell here demands. It might be said of
Christians, they eat the Lord's supper, and they are baptized. The
contrast between nipsontai and baptisontai in the passage referred to,
does not require the same voice. Nipsosi, the active itself, might have
been used, and baptisontai in the passive. I understand it in the middle,
not because nipsontai is middle, but because in the baptism referred to,
every one baptized himself. Had it been as in Christian baptism, I
should understand it in the passive.
Mr. Evving translates the passage thus : " For the Pharisees and all
the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition
of the elders. And even when they have come from a market, unless they
baptize, they eat not," &c. But the word oft, as a translation of pugme,
is liable to the objections of Dr. Campbell, which I need not here repeat.
Mr. Ewing surely should have obviated them. Besides, neither Mr.
Evving, nor any person, so far as I know, has produced one example, in
which pugme confessedly signifies oft. Without this the translation has
no authority. Mr. Ewing translates kai, and even, for which there is
no authority. That particle often signifies even, but never and even.
Mr. Ewing's translation makes their baptism after the market, inferior
to the washing before mentioned. But this certainly reverses the true
meaning. Defilement certainly was understood to be increased by the
market. Mr. Ewing indeed endeavours to give a turn to this, but it is
a complete failure. " And in order to show how strictly they hold this
tradition," he says, " they observed it, not merely on their more solemn
occasions, but even when they had just come from places of public
resort, and from the ordinary intercourse of life." But where did Mr.
Evving find their more solemn occasions ? This is apocryphal, and, like
the Apocrypha, it contradicts the genuine Scriptures. The evangelist
declares, that except they ivash their hands, they eat not. This implies,
that they never sat down to table, even at their ordinary meals, without
washing. The baptism, after market, then, must have been a greater
or more extensive purification. Mr. Ewing supposes that the word
baptize is used here to show that the washing was not for cleanliness,
but was a religious custom. But this is shown sufficiently, if baptize
were not used. It is directly stated, that this washing was obedience
to the tradition of the elders. I observe farther, that if the washing
was not by other circumstances known to be a religious custom, this
would not have been known by the word baptizo more than by nipto.
70 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
Besides, baptisontai does not here explain or limit nipsontai. If the
latter could not, with the words construed with it, be known to designate
a religious observance, it can receive no assistance from the former.
Mr. Ewing understands both words as referring to the same thing,
washing the hands by water poured on them. Why, then, is nipto
changed for baptizo 1 Surely the change of the word intimates a change
of the meaning in such circumstances. " They eat not, except they
wash their hands. And after market they eat not, except they baptize."
Surely no person, who has not a purpose to serve, would suppose that
baptize here meant the very same thing with wash the hands. But if it
is insisted that baptize here is distinguished from nipto as a religious
washing, then how will it determine that nipto here refers to a religious
washing? If it is here so distinguished from nipto, then the washing
denoted by nipto cannot be a religious washing. This would import,
that the washing of the hands first spoken of by nipto was not a religious
washing ; and that the latter washing was distinguished from the former
by this. The meaning then would be : " Except they wash their hands,
they eat not ; and when they have come from the market, they eat not
until they have washed their hands religiously."
But as respects my argument, I care not whether baptisontai here
refers to the hands or the whole body ; it is perfectly sufficient for me,
if it here admits its usual meaning. Let it be here observed, and never
let it be forgotten, that with respect to the meaning of a word in any pas-
sage, the proof that it has such a meaning alioays lies upon him who uses
it in that meaning as an argument or objection ; for this obvious reason,
that if it is not proved, it is neither argument nor objection. Now if I choose
to bring this passage as an argument, or as additional evidence, I must
prove its meaning. In this way I have viewed it as having weight : but
if I choose to give up its evidence, and stand on the defence, my anta-
gonist is bound to prove his view of it as a ground of his objection, and
my cause requires no more of me than to show that the word in such a
situation is capable of the meaning for which I contend. For it is evi-
dent, that if it may have such a meaning, it cannot be certain that it
has not that signification. Many a passage may contain the disputed
word in such circumstances as to afford no definite evidence. It cannot,
in such a passage, be used as proof: it is enough, if it admits the mean-
ing contended for. This is a grand law of controversy, attention to
which will save the advocates of truth much useless toil ; and keep them
from attempting to prove, what it may not be possible to prove, and
what they are not required to prove. It will also assist the inquirer to
arrive at truth. Now, in the present case, except Mr. Ewing proves that
baptisontai must here signify the potiring of water upon the hands, or
that it cannot refer to the dipping of the hands or the body, he has done
nothing. I bring passages without number, to prove that the word must
have the meaning for which I contend. No passage could be a valid
objection against my conclusion, except one in which it cannot have that
signification. These observations I state as self-evident truth : the man
who does not perceive their justness, cannot be worth reasoning with.
But why should it be thought incredible, that the Pharisees immersed
THE MODE OF BAPTISM. XI
themselves after market ? If an Egyptian, on touching a swine, would
run to the river and plunge in with his clothes, is it strange that the
superstitious Pharisees should immerse themselves after the pollution of
the market?
Dr. Gale, however, on the authority of the Syriac, Arabic, Ethiopic,
and Persic versions, is inclined to understand the passage as relating to
the dipping of the things bought in the market. But as I decidedly
prefer the other sense, I will not avail myself of this resource. I abhor
the practice of catching at any forced meaning that serves a temporary
purpose, at the expense of setting loose the meaning of God's word. I
do not wish to force a favourite mode of baptism on the Scriptures, but
I will implicitly submit my mind to the mode that God has appointed.
I have not a wish on the subject, but to know the will of Christ.
What our version, Mark vii. 4, calls the ivashing, &c, the original
calls, the baptisms of cups, pots, &,c. It may then be asked, does not
this imply that this word signifies washing? But I answer, as before,
that though these things were dipped for zoashing, yet dipping and
washing are not the same thing. The washing is not expressed, but
is a mere consequence of the dipping. The passage, then, ought to be
translated immersions. The purification of all the things specified, except
the last, was appointed by the law, Levit. xi. 32, to be effected by being
put under water. But with respect to the klinai, or beds, Mr. Ewing
asserts that the translation dippings would be manifestly absurd. Now
what is manfestly absurd cannot be true. If this assertion, then, is well
founded, Mr. Ewing has opposed a barrier, which the boldest cannot
pass. But why is this absurd ? Let us hear his own words. " The
articles specified in ver. 4, are all utensils and accommodations of the
Jewish mode of eating, about which the evangelist was speaking ; from
the ' cups, pots, and brazen vessels' of the cook and the butler, to the
' beds' of the triclinium, or dining-room, for the use of the family and
their guests. There were three only of these beds in one room. Each
was commonly occupied by three persons, and sometimes by five or even
more. Three such beds probably accommodated our Lord and his dis-
ciples at the last supper. They must have been of such a size, there-
fore, as to preclude the idea of their being immersed, especially being
frequently immersed, as a religious ordinance." Now I will admit this
account in every tittle, yet still contend that there is nothing like an
absurdity in the supposition that the couches were immersed. The thing
is quite possible, and who will say that the superstitious Pharisees might
not practise it? It would indeed be a very inconvenient thing, but
what obstacles will not superstition overcome? It would be a foolish
thing; but who would expect anything but folly in will-worship? Such
religious practice was indeed absurd, but it is an abuse of language to
assert that it is an absxirdity to say that the Pharisees immersed their
couches. Let Mr. Ewing beware of using such language. If the Holy
Spirit has asserted that the Pharisees baptized their couches, and if this
word signifies to immerse, Mr. Ewing has asserted that the Holy Spirit
has asserted an absurdity. This is no light matter. It is an awful
charge on the Spirit of inspiration.
72 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
Dr. Wardlaw is equally rash on this point. He supposes that it is
incredible that they immersed their beds. How is it incredible 1 Is the
thing impossible ? If not, its credibility depends on the testimony. But
whether or not the Holy Spirit gives the testimony, depends on the
meaning of the word. If from other passages we learn that it has this
meaning, this passage cannot teach the contrary, if the thing is possible.
Upon the principle of interpretation here recognised by Mr. Ewing and
Dr. Wardlaw, we might reject every thing in history not suited to our
own conceptions ; or explain them away by paring down the meaning of
words. This is the very principle of the Neological explanation of the
Scripture miracles. The things are thought absurd in the obvious
meaning of the words ; and therefore the language must submit to accept
a meaning suitable to the conceptions of the critics. Mr. Robinson
thinks the common view of the exploit of Samson in killing such a
multitude with the jaw-bone of an ass incredible, and he takes away the
incredibility of the scriptural account, by explaining it of the tooth of a
rock which Samson pulled down on his enemies. Dr. Wardlaw says,
with respect to the immersion of beds, " he who can receive it, let him
receive it." I say, he who dares to reject it, rejects the testimony of God.
This is a most improper way to speak on the subject. If immersion is
the meaning of the word, it is not optional to receive or reject it. Whe-
ther or not this is its meaning, must be learned from its history, not
from the abstract probability or improbability of the immersion of beds.
If the history of the word declares its meaning to be immersion, the mere
difficulty of immersing beds, in conformity to a religious tradition, can-
not imply that it has another meaning here. The principle, then, of this
objection, and the language in which these writers state it, cannot be
too strongly reprobated. If adopted on other questions respecting the
will of God, it tends to set us loose from the authority of his word.
I will here reduce my observations on this point to the form of a canon.
When a thing is proved by sufficient evidence, no objection
from difficulties can be admitted as decisive, except they in-
VOLVE an impossibility. This is self-evident, for otherwise nothing
could ever be proved. If every man's view of abstract probability were
allowed to outweigh evidence, no truth would stand the test. The exist-
ence of God could not be proved. The Scriptures themselves could not
abide such a trial. If my canon is not self-evident, let no man receive
it ; but if it is just, it overturns not only this objection, but almost all
the objections that have been alleged against immersion in baptism.
Besides, there is hardly any point of theological controversy in which it
may not be useful. Many who are willing to admit it on the subject of
baptism, may act contrary to it on other subjects. Indeed, there are
few who do not in things of small moment overlook this principle.
In tracing the history of Jesus, we shall see how much of the oppo-
sition to his claims was founded on the principle which my canon
reprobates. When he said that he was the bread that came down from
heaven, the Jews murmured, and replied, " Is not this Jesus, the son of
Joseph, whose father and mother we know ? How is it then that he
saith, I came down from heaven?" John vi. 42. Here was a difficulty
THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 73
that they thought insuperable. " We are sure he was born among us
— he could not therefore have come from heaven." But there was a
solution to this difficulty, had their prejudices permitted them to find it.
It was possible, that though born on earth, as a man, he might come
from heaven, as he was God. But they were glad to catch at the appa-
rent inconsistency ; and their prejudices would not allow them to attempt
to vindicate themselves. This in fact is the very substance of one com-
mon objection to the deity of Christ. The Arians still collect all the
passages that assert the human nature of Christ, and take it for granted
that this is a proof that he is not God. Let our brethren take care that
it is not on the same principle they allege this objection to immersion in
baptism. Were there no wish to find evidence on one side only, would
it be supposed that it is absurd or incredible that the superstitious Phari-
sees immersed even their couches 1 — Another striking instance of object-
ing on this principle we have, John vii. 41, 42. " Shall Christ come
out of Galilee? Hath not the Scripture said, that Christ cometh of the
seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was V
This would appear to them a noose from which he could not extricate
himself — a difficulty that he could not solve. The Scriptures assert,
that the Christ will come out of Bethlehem-, but this man has come out of
Galilee. Had they been as willing to see evidence in his favour, as evi-
dence against him, they might have perceived that the agreement of
these apparent contradictions was not impossible. The knowledge of
his real history would have given the solution. But it was not a solution
they wanted. In reading the history of Jesus also, it is not uninstruc-
tive to remark, that many things which appear to his enemies decisive
evidence against him, had no weight at all with his friends. This dis-
crepancy shows how much our sentiments are under the influence of our
feelings, and consequently the guilt of unbelief, with respect to any part
of the Divine counsel which we reject. Though we have no right to
judge one another, we have a right, when God has given a revelation,
to ascribe all ignorance of it to sin. I make this observation not merely
with respect to the point now in debate, or to criminate my opponents.
The observation applies to every error ; and as no man has attained in
every thing to truth, it applies to us all. I make the observation to incite
my brethren on both sides of this subject, to search without prejudice —
to inquire under the influence of an impression of great accountableness.
I will state farther, that in proving that a thing is not impossible,
THERE IS NO OBLIGATION TO PROVE THAT ANY OF THE POSSIBLE WAYS OF
SOLUTION DID ACTUALLY EXIST. TlIE BARE POSSIBILITY OF EXISTENCE
is enough. This also is self-evident, and may be stated as a canon. Yet
from inattention to this, the opponents of immersion are constantly call-
ing on us to prove, that there were, in such and such places, things
necessary for dipping. Mr. Ewing gauges the reservoirs and wells of
Jerusalem, to show their insufficiency for immersion. He may then call
on me to find a place sufficient to immerse a couch. But I will go on
no such errand. If I have proved the meaning of the word, I will believe
the Spirit of God, who tells me that the Pharisees baptized their beds, and
leave the superstition and industry of the devotees to find or make such
10
74 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
a place. Let the demand which our opponents in this instance make
on us, be conceded to the infidel, and the Bible must be given up. In
replying to difficulties started by the deist, the defender of Christianity
thinks he has amply done his duty, when he shows that the solution is
possible, without proving that the possible way of solution did actually
exist. Indeed, many of the defenders of Christianity undertake too
much, and lay too much stress on actual proof, with respect to the way
in which difficulties may be removed. When such proof can be got, it
is always right to produce it, more clearly to confound the infidel. But
it is extremely injudicious to lay such a stress on these solutions, as if
they were actually necessary. It ought always to be strongly stated,
that such proof is more than the defence of truth requires. When
writers think themselves remarkably successful in this way, they are not
disinclined to magnify the importance of their discoveries, and are
willing to rest a part of the evidence on their own success. This dis-
covers more vanity than judgment, and more desire for the glory of
discovery, than for the interests of the truths defended. When this
happens, it is not strange that infidels are emboldened to make the un-
reasonable demand, which their opponents have voluntarily rendered
themselves liable to answer. If I could prove that there was at Jeru-
salem a pond that could immerse the High Church of Glasgow, I would
certainly bring forward my proof; but I would as certainly disclaim the
necessity. To give an example. In opposition to Dr. Campbell's
opinion, that Mark vii. 4, refers to the dipping of the hands, Mr. Ewing,
as his proof, alleges, that " as far as he has observed, there is only one
way of washing either the hands or the feet in Scripture, and that is,
by pouring water upon them, and rubbing them as the water flows."
Now, were I of Dr. Campbell's opinion on this passage, I would grant
Mr. Ewing all this, yet abide by my position. It is very possible that
all the other instances of washing the hands that are mentioned in Scrip-
ture may be such, yet a different way have been in existence on some
occasions. And if the expression were baptisosi tas clieiras, this I would
suppose not only possible, but undoubtedly true. No number of exam-
ples of one mode of washing the hands can prove that no other mode
was ever practised. It is of vast importance in every controversy, to
know what we are obliged to prove, and what is not necessary to our
argument. From inattention to this, Mr. Ewing thinks he has defeated
Dr. Campbell, when he has never touched him. His weapons fall quite
on this side of the mark. Now, on this last point I differ from Dr.
Campbell. I do not think that baptisontai refers to the dipping of the
hands. Yet I would not use Mr. Ewing's arguments to disprove this.
Indeed, were Dr. Campbell alive, he would not be so easily defeated.
Mr. Ewing discredits his authority on the subject of immersion as the
scriptural mode of baptism, by representing him as resting his opinion
on Tertullian among the ancients, and Wetstein among the moderns.
Nothing can be more unfair. He merely refers to Tertullian, to show
the sense in which the word baptizo was understood by the Latin fathers,
and quotes the opinion of Wetstein, with a general approbation of him
as a critic, certainly beyond his deserts, and with respect to a criticism
THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 75
which I believe to be false. But Dr. Campbell was not a man to found
his views on such authority. When he says, "I have heard a disputant
of this stamp, in defiance of etymology and use, maintain that the word
rendered in the New Testament baptize, means more properly to sprinkle
than to plunge ; and in defiance of all antiquity, that the former method
was the earliest, and for many centuries the most general practice in
baptizing," does he not found it on his own knowledge of etymology and
use — on his own knowledge of antiquity 1 Will Mr. Ewing venture to
say that Dr. Campbell was not well acquainted with the etymology and
use of the word in question 1 From what modern must he receive in-
struction with respect to the antiquities of church history ? It may be
true, indeed, that Dr. Campbell has not done all for this subject that he
might have done. But did he fail in what he attempted ? Who would
expect that in his situation he could have done more ? Nor is his can-
dour in confessing a mode of baptism to be primitive, which he did not
adopt, to be ascribed to a vanity of patronising what he did not practise.
Like many others, he may have thought that the mode was not essential
to the ordinance. And I have no hesitation in affirming, that such an
opinion is far less injurious to the Scriptures, than the attempt of those
who will force their favourite mode out of the Scriptures, while even
on the rack they will not make the confession. Such persons are obliged
to give a false turn to a great part of Scripture, totally unconcerned in
the controversy. Nay, they are obliged to do violence even to the classics.
Popery itself is not obliged, on this point, to make such havoc of the
word of God. It has a happy power of changing Scripture ordinances, and
therefore, on this point, can confess the truth without injury to its system.
I am led to the defence of Dr. Campbell, not from a wish to have the
authority of his name on my side on this question. In that point of
view, I do not need him. I consider myself as having produced such a
body of evidence on this subject, that I am entitled to disregard the
mere authority of names. I have appealed to a tribunal higher than
the authority of all critics — to use itself. I do not hold up Dr. Camp-
bell as universally successful in his criticisms. Many of them I am
convinced are wrong ; and those who have in all things made our ver-
sion of the Gospels conform to his, have done no service to the cause of
Christ. His judgment is always to be respected, but often to be rejected.
On some points of Christian doctrine, he was evidently but partially
enlightened, and against some he has made his translation and criticisms
to bear. But as a man of integrity — as a candid adversary — as a
philosophic critic, he has few equals. With respect to the philosophy
of language, he is immeasurably before all our Scripture critics. I bow
to the authority of no man in the things of God, yet I cannot but
reverence Dr. Campbell. I respect him almost as much when I differ
from him, as when we are agreed. He looks into language with the eye
of a philosopher, and in controversy manifests a candour unknown to
most theologians. Mr. Ewing's censure of Dr. Campbell involves the
great body of learned men : it is too notorious to need proof, that the
most learned men in Europe, while they practised sprinkling or pouring,
have confessed immersion to be the primitive mode.
76 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
But with respect to Mark vii. 4, though it were proved that the
couches could not be immersed, I would not yield an inch of the ground
I have occupied. There is no absolute necessity to suppose that the
klinai, or beds, were the couches at table. The word, indeed, both in
Scripture and in Greek writers, has this signification ; but in both it
also signifies the beds on which they slept. Now, if it were such beds
that the Pharisees baptized, there is nothing to prevent their immersion.
They were such that a man could take up from the street, and carry to
his house, Matt. ix. 6.
Besides, as it is not said how often they purified in this manner, we
are at liberty to suppose that it was only for particular kinds of unclean-
ness, and on occasions that did not often occur. Mr. Ewing, indeed,
says, " there was, no doubt, a complete observance of the ' baptisms' of
cups, and pots, and brazen vessels, and beds, at the feast of the marriage
in Cana in Galilee." There is no doubt that at that feast there was a
purification of all things, according to the custom of a wedding : but
where did Mr. Ewing learn that it was during the feast that the couches
were purified? The water-pots were, no doubt, for the purification
usual at a wedding : but this does not indicate all Jewish purifications.
The hands and the feet of the guests were washed, and very likely also,
the vessels used at the feast : but that the couches were purified is not
said, and is not likely. It is not necessary, even, that all things puri-
fied at a feast, should have been purified out of these water-pots. It is
enough that they were suitable for the purification of some things. If
there was anything to be purified which could not be purified in them,
it may have been purified elsewhere. It is not said that all things were
purified in these water-pots. Besides, it is not said that these water-
pots were but once filled during the wedding feast. We may therefore
fill them as often as we find necessary. I do not, therefore, find it at all
necessary, with Mr. Ewing, to gauge these water-pots, in order to settle
this question.
Mr. Bruce informs us, that in Abyssinia, the sect called Kemmont
" wash themselves from head to foot, after coming from the market, or
any public place, where they may have touched any one of a different
sect from their own, esteeming all such unclean." Is it strange, then,
to find the Pharisees, the superstitious Pharisees, immersing their
couches for purification, or themselves after market? I may add, that
the couches might have been so constructed, that they might be con-
veniently taken to pieces, for the purpose of purification. This I say,
only for the sake of those who will not believe God without a voucher.
For myself, it is perfectly sufficient that the Holy Spirit testifies that the
Pharisees baptized themselves before eating, after market ; and that they
baptized their couches. It is an axiom in science, that no difficulty
can avail against demonstration ; and with me it is an axiom, that no
difficulty entitles us to give the lie to the Spirit of inspiration.
In Heb. ix. 10, the word baptismois is translated tcashi?igs. Is not
this proof that the word signifies to wash? The reply to this has
already been given, in showing the difference between dip and wash.
The translation ought to be " different immersions," not " different
THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 77
washings." Dipping is the thing expressed, washing is a consequence.
But Dr. Wardlaw observes, " that amongst the ' divers washings' of the
old dispensation, referred to Heb. ix. 10, must surely be included all the
various modes of Jewish purification ; and consequently the rantismata,
or sprinklings, which were the most numerous," p. 172. But how is
this certain 1 Why should it be supposed that the baptisms under the
law contained all the purifications required by the law 1 This is not
said here, nor anywhere else in the Scriptures. There is no necessity
to suppose that every thing enjoined in the law must be included in the
things here mentioned. The apostle designs to illustrate merely by
specification, not to give a logical abstract. But even were the sprink-
lings to be included in one or other of the things mentioned, it may be
in the carnal ordinances. It is a very convenient way of proving any-
thing, to take it for granted. Dr. Wardlaw here takes for granted the
thing to be proved. The phrase " divers baptisms," must indicate the
sprinklings; therefore baptism must signify sprinkling, as one of its
meanings. But we deny that the " divers baptisms" include the sprink-
lings. The phrase alludes to the immersion of the different things that
by the law were to be immersed. The greatest part of false reasoning
depends on false first principles. Dr. Wardlaw's first principle here, is
like that of Nathaniel with respect to Christ : " Can any good thing
come out of Nazareth?" If it is granted that no good thing could
come out of Nazareth, the proof was undoubted, that Jesus was not the
Christ. To refute such reasoning, we have only to demand the proof
of the premises.
Judith xii. 7, is another passage which may be alleged to prove that
baptizo sometimes signifies to wash ; but from what has frequently been
observed on the like use of the word, with how little reason, will appear
in a moment : " And she went out in the night, and baptized herself in
the camp at a fountain." This ought here to have been translated she
dipped herself. Washing was the consequence of dipping in pure water.
Homer speaks of stars washed in the sea, (II. E. 6 ;) and Virgil, express-
ing the same thing, speaks of the constellation of the bear, as fearing to
be dipped in the ocean, (Georg. i., 245.) Now, though exactly the same
thing is referred to, the expressions are not exactly equivalent. By the
word washing, Homer fixes our attention, not on the mere dipping, but
on the effect of it, — the washing of the stars by being dipped. Virgil
fixes our attention, not on the washing of the stars, but on their dipping,
with reference to the danger or disagreeableness of the operation. We
may say either Jill the pitcher, or dip the pitcher ; but this does not
imply that dip signifies to fill. In like manner, the word baptizo is used
when persons sink in water, and perish. Whiston, in his version of
Josephus, sometimes translates it drown. But does this imply that
baptizo signifies to drown, or to perish 1 The perishing, or the drown-
ing, is the consequence of dipping in certain circumstances. The per-
son, then, who so perishes, may be said to be drowned. But this is not
a translation ; it is a commentary. I have already pointed out the fallacy
of that position, which is a first principle with most critics ; namely, the
supposition, that words are equivalent, which in any circumstances are
78 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
interchangeable. It is an error plausible, but mischievous. Yet, on no
better foundation does Dr. Wall, and innumerable others after him,
argue that baptizo must signify to wash in general. The verb louo is
applied to baptism ; therefore baptizo, it is thought, must signify to wash,
as well as louo.
Mr. Evving, indeed, says, " In this case, the washing could not have
been by immersion, being done at a spring or fountain of water." But
what sort of impossibility is this ? VVas it utterly impossible to have a
conveniency for bathing near a fountain ? On the contrary, is it not
very probable that stone troughs, or other vessels, were usually provided
at fountains for bathing and washing clothes ? We find such a provision
at two fountains near Troy, mentioned by Homer, lib. xxii. 153 :
" Two fountains, tepid one, from which a smoke
Issues voluminous, as from a fire ;
The other, ev'n in summer's heats, like hail
For cold, or snow, or crystal stream frost-bound.
Beside them may be seen the broad canals
Of marble scooped, in which the wives of Troy,
And all her daughters fair, were wont to lave
Their costly raiment, while the land had rest," &c.
Cowper.
We find also a like provision at a river in Phaeacia, in the Odyssey,
Jib. vi. 86 :
"At the delightful rivulet arrived,
Where those perennial cisterns were prepared,
With purest crystal of the fountain fed
Profuse," &c. Cowper.
Why, then, may not such a provision have been at the fountain
referred to, especially as it was in a camp? Is it likely that in such a
place there would be no convenience for bathing ? Indeed, nothing is
more common in our own country, than where there is no river, to have
a vessel, or contrivance of some kind, for bathing, near a well. But I
produce this evidence as a mere work of supererogation. Nothing more
can be required of me than to show that the thing is not impossible.
Even were it certain, that at this fountain there was no such provision,
might not some person have supplied her with a vessel? To argue as
Mr. Ewing does here, is to reason without first principles. He takes it
for granted, that a thing is impossible, which is so far from being impos-
sible, that it is not improbable. Were this a lawful mode of reasoning,
it would be easy to disprove every thing.
Section XII. — I shall now try what evidence can be found to deter-
mine the literal meaning of the word baptizo, from its figurative appli-
cations. When a word is used figuratively, the figure is founded on the
literal meaning ; and, therefore, by examining the figure, we may disco-
ver additional evidence with respect to the literal meaning. And here
I would first observe, that some instances of figurative use may not be
decisive, as well as some instances of literal use. It is enough that
every instance of both literal and figurative use will explain fairly on
THE MODE OP BAPTISM. 79
the supposition of the meaning for which we contend, when other in-
stances irresistibly and confessedly imply it. Our opponents contend,
that in some of its figurative occurrences the allusion is to pouring.
" In this sense of pouring upon, and pouring into," says Mr. Ewing,
" till mind and body are overwhelmed, impregnated, intoxicated, and the
circumstances are oppressive, or even destructive, the word is very
frequently used in profane writers." In opposition to this, I assert that
not one of all Mr. Ewing's examples necessarily refers to pouring upon,
or pouring into. In many of them, the translation may be overwhelm ;
but in this term, the reference is not to water poured upon, or poured
into, but to water coming over in a current, like the tide overwhelming
the beach. This is strictly and characteristically expressed by kluzo.
To this, some of the figurative occurrences of baptizo have a reference ;
and here there is a real immersion. The overiohelming water baptizes
or sinks the person or thing baptized. Some of the instances in which
the word is translated overwhelm, may well enough be so rendered, as a
free translation ; yet as there is no allusion to water coming over, but to
sinking in water, the translation is not literal. I observe again, that
whether the water is supposed to come over the object, or the object is
supposed to sink in the water, there is not a single figurative occurrence
of the word, which does not imply that the object was completely covered
with the water. Now, this kind of baptism would be little relief to Mr.
Ewing. The man who is covered by the tide, while he lies on the shore,
by the edge of the sea, is overwhelmed ; and he is as completely covered,
as if he had gone into the sea, and dipped himself. Even were Mr.
Ewing to pour or sprinkle the water in baptism, till the person baptized
should be entirely drenched, it would afford no relief from immersion.
Not one, then, of the examples of figurative use adduced by Mr. Ewing,
countenances his own favourite mode of baptism.
Let us now take a look at Mr. Ewing's examples, in which the word
is used figuratively : " To have been drenched with wine." I have no
objection to the translation drench, as it may imply that the object is
steeped or dipped, so as to be soaked in the fluid. But as a thing may
be drenched by pouring or sprinkling, the translation is not definitely
exact. Literally, it is immersed in wine.
In order to determine whether pouring or immersing is the ground
of the figure, let us examine what is the point of likeness. It must be
a bad figure, if the point of resemblance in the objects is not obvious.
Now, let it be observed, that there is no likeness between the action of
drinking, and either the pouring of fluids, or immersion in them. Were
this the point of resemblance, the drinking of one small glass might be
designated a baptism, as well as the drinking of a cask ; for the mode is
as perfect on the lowest point in the scale, as on the highest. Every act
of drinking, whether wine or water, would be a baptism. Mr. Ewing,
indeed, supposes that there is an excessive pouring, but as this cannot be
included in mere mode, it cannot be included in the word that designates
this, but must be expressed by some additional word. Besides, if the
word baptizo signifies excessive pouring, it must do so in baptism, which
condemns Mr. Ewing's popping a little water on the face. If it is
80 THE MODE OP BAPTISM.
supposed that there is poiiring in the drinking of a drunkard, which is
not in drinking moderately, and that the design of this application of the
word baptizo is to designate this ; I reply, that the mode of drinking a
small glass is as much pouring, as the drinking of the cup of Hercules.
Indeed, there may be something of pouring in the action of putting a
small quantity of liquid into the mouth, which is not in drinking a large
goblet. But if the word baptizo, in expressing drunkenness, refers to
the mode of drinking, there is then no figure at all in the expression, for
between pouring and pouring there is no resemblance. This is identity.
Indeed, Mr. Ewing does not treat these expressions as figurative. He
speaks as if he considered that the word baptizo was taken in them
literally. He supposes that there is a "pouring upon or a pouring into,
till mind and body are overwhelmed," &c. The wine then is poured
into the person till he is intoxicated. This might be true, if the wine
was put into him as men administer a drench to a horse. But the
drunkard administers the wine to himself. What is the sense of the
expression he is poured with wine, which on this supposition is the literal
meaning ?
But when baptizo is applied to drunkenness, it is taken figuratively ;
and the point of resemblance is between a man completely under the
influence of wine, and an object completely subjected to a liquid in
which it is wholly immersed. This is not only obvious from the figure
itself, but from the circumstances with which the figure is sometimes
conjoined. Clemens Alexandrinus, employing the same figure, says,
baptized into sleep, through drunkenness. Now, baptized into sleep, is
exactly our figure buried in sleep, which is an immersion ; and burial
is the thing represented by Christian baptism. Is there any likeness
between pouring and sleeping ? Is not the likeness between complete
subjection to the influence of sleep, and the complete subjection of an
object to the influence of a liquid when immersed in it ? The same
father applies the word to those who give themselves up to fornication.
This is just our own figure when we speak of plunging headlong into
debauchery.
This view is fully confirmed by the same figure in other languages.
All figures that are founded on nature, and obvious to the observation
of all nations, will be in all languages the same. Figurative language
is a universal language. Now, when we examine this figure in the Latin
language, our view of it is put beyond all doubt. Virgil says of the
Greeks taking Troy,
" Invadunt urbem somno vinoque sepultam."
They invade the city buried in sleep and wine.
Here burial is applied both to sleep and wine. Baptized, therefore,
into sleep and wine, as used in the Greek language, must be the same
as buried in sleep and wine in the Latin. Surely if the expression in
the Greek needed a commentary, this must be an authoritative one.
There can be no pretence for taking pouring out of burial. This must
be immersion.
Lactantius, as Gale remarks, employs the phrase vitiis im?nersi,
THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 81
immersed or plunged in vice ; and Origen, in his commentary on John,
uses the same figure. The expression of the former, therefore, must be
the best commentary on that of the latter. Vices are not supposed to
be poured upon the vicious person, but he sinks in them. We ourselves
speak in this manner. We speak of a man who sinks in vice. Martial's
figure — " Lana sanguine conchse ebria" — wool drunk with the blood of
the shell-fish — also affords a commentary on the Greek figure. Here,
wool dipped in a liquid is said to be drunk with that liquid from being
completely soaked with it. Schwarzius, indeed, supposes that Shak-
speare's figure, " then let the earth be drunken with our blood," counte-
nances the supposition that baptizo, though it primarily signifies to dip,
sometimes signifies pouring or sprinkling. But what is the ground of this
opinion ? Why, it is this. Baptizo, sometimes, is figuratively applied
to drunkenness, and drunkenness is sometimes figuratively applied to the
earth drenched ivith blood. Therefore, since the earth is drenched with
blood by pouring or sprinkling, baptizo must sometimes signify pouring
or sprinkling. This states the evidence as fairly as any can desire. But
there is a multitude of errors here. If one word may figuratively be
applied to an object literally denoted by another word, does it follow
that they mark the same mode? Is there any likeness between the
mode of drinking, and that of the falling of blood on the earth? The
earth is here said to be drunk with blood, not because there is a
likeness between the manner of drinking wine, and that of the falling of
blood, but from being completely drenched with blood, without any
reference to the manner in which it received the blood. Indeed, as
there is no likeness between the falling of blood on the earth, and the
mode of drinking, the above expression is the clearest proof that the
expression baptized with loinc does not refer to the same mode. It might
as well be said, that the expression, Deut. xxxii. 42, " I will make
mine arrows drunk with blood," implies a proof that baptizo signifies
to dip ; because arrows are besmeared with blood by being dipped in the
body. But this would be false criticism. God's arrows are supposed to
be drunk with blood — not from the manner in which arrows are usually
covered with blood, but from the abundance of the blood shed by them.
These observations will apply to all the examples in which this word
is applied to drunkenness. I need not, therefore, examine them particu-
larly : but I must refer to one or two, to show how ill Mr. Ewing's
explication will apply to them. " Oino tie polio Alexandron baptisasa," —
having immersed Alexander in wine, — that is, having made him drunk
with wine. This, according to Mr. Ewing's explication, would be,
" having poured Alexander with much wine," not " having poured much
wine into Alexander." This would be pouring the man into the wine,
instead of pouring the wine into the man. " Baptized into insensibility,
and sleep under drunkenness." Now, a baptism into sleep, we have
already seen, is an immersion. Immersed, or buried in sleep, is a phrase
that is warrantable; but what is the meaning of being poured into sleep
and insensibility ? Here it is not supposed that sleep is poured out on
the person, but if bebaptismenon signifies pouring, the person must have
been poured out into sleep.
11
82 THE MODE OP BAPTISM.
The words, dunamis bebaptismene en to bathei toxi s&matos, Mr. Ewing
translates, " a force infused into (or diffused in) the inward parts of the
body." This translation, however, is not only unwarranted by the ori-
ginal, but is as unsuitable to the supposition that baptizo signifies to
pour, as that it signifies to immerse. To infuse into would not be bap-
tizein en, but baptizcin cis. Does Mr. Ewing mean to say, that the
parenthetical words are explanatory, and that diffused in is equivalent to
infused into ? or does he mean that they are two different meanings, ot
which the text is equally susceptible? A strange thing, indeed, if the
same phrase can equally signify infused into a.nddiffuscd in ! In English
these things are very different. Greek, it seems, has a wonderful fer-
tility of meaning. When a controversialist indulges himself in a license
of this kind, he may indeed very easily prove or disprove anything. He
has nothing to do but make the text speak what he wants. This gives
baptizo a new meaning, to diffuse. This is the most wonderful word that
was ever found in any language. It can with equal facility in the very
same phrase denote opposite things. To diffuse is surely the opposite of
infuse. It is very true, that the same word compounded with different
prepositions may do so, as is the case with infuse and diffuse ; but let it
be observed that it is the very same phrase that Mr. Ewing makes
equally susceptible of these opposite meanings. This surely is philolo-
gical legerdemain. Let it be observed, also, that Mr. Ewing supposes that
the word baptizo itself in these examples signifies to pour upon, or to pour
into. Now where does he find the force of these prepositions in the Greek
word ? If it signifies to pour, it does not signify to pour into, or to pour
upon. The additional idea which varies the word so materially, must
be got by a preposition prefixed or following : the literal translation of
the above example is, " a force or power immersed in the depth of the
body." To immerse in the depth is a congruous expression, but to pour
in the depth is altogether incongruous.
The example from Plutarch will suit my purpose well enough in
Mr. Ewing's translation ; " for as plants are nourished by moderate, but
choked by excessive watering, (literally waters,) in like manner the
mind is enlarged by labours suited to its strength, but is ovenchelmed
(Gr. baptized) by such as exceed its power." Mr. Ewing says, " the
reference here to the nourishment of plants, indicates pouring only to be
the species of watering alluded to in the term." But in this figure there
is no reference at all to the mode of watering plants. The reference is
to the quantity of water. The mode is not mentioned; but even were it
mentioned, it would be merely a circumstance to which nothing corre-
sponds in the thing illustrated. What critic would ever think of hunt-
ing after such likenesses in figurative language? There is actually no
likeness between the mode of watering plants, and the proportioning of
labour to the mind of a pupil ; and Plutarch is not guilty of such ab-
surdity. To Plutarch's figure it would be quite the same thing, if a pot
of plants was dipped into water, instead of having the water poured into
it. The pot itself might be dipped in water, without any injury to the
plants. The plants are injured when the water is suffered to lie about them
in too great abundance, in whatever way it has been applied. The
THE MODE OP BAPTISM. 83
choking of the plant corresponds to the suffocation in baptism, or im-
mersion. The choking of the powers of the mind is elegantly illustrated
by the choking of the vegetable powers when a plant is covered in water.
There is a beautiful allusion to the suffocation of an animal under water.
Were Plutarch to rise from the dead, with what indignation would he
remonstrate against the criticism that makes him refer to the mode of
watering plants, in a figure intended to illustrate the bad effects of too
much study ! How loudly would he disclaim the cold, unnatural
thought ! Is it not possible figuratively to illustrate something by a
reference to the mountains buried under snow, without referring to the
manner of its falling, and pursuing the resemblance to the Jlakes of fea-
thered snoio? So far from this, I assert, that this manner of explaining
figures is universally improper. No instance could be more beautifully
decisive in our favour than the above figure of Plutarch. Mr. Ewing
makes him compare the choking of one thing to the overwhelming of
another. But the author himself compares the choking of a plant, or
the extinction of vegetable life, to the choking or the extinction of the
mental poioers ; and in both there is an elegant allusion to the choking
of an animal under water.
But even on Mr. Ewing's own system, his explanation of this example
is most fatal to his popping. Baptizo here he makes to signify death by
too much water, as opposed to the moderate application of water. If
this is the distinctive meaning of baptizo, it cannot also denote the
smallest application of water. It cannot surely designate the opposite
extremes.
The word is frequently applied to overwhelming debt, or oppressive
taxation : " tons de idiotas dia ten ek touton euporian, ou baptizousi tois
eisphorais." This Mr. Ewing very well translates, " on account of the
abundant supply from these sources, they do not oppress (or overload,
Gr. baptize) the common people with taxes." But neither the original
nor the translation will bear to be explained by the assertion that they
are brought to support, namely, that baptizo sometimes signifies to pour
upon ox pour into. Taxes are not supposed in this figure to be poured
upon, or poured into, the people who pay them ; and overwhelming taxes
are not supposed to be poured, while small taxes are dropped on the
people. The people might rather be said to pour their taxes into the
treasury. If baptizousi here signifies to pour upon, or pour into, as
Mr. Ewing supposes, the translation, when literal, will be, " They do not
pour the common people with taxes," or rather, " they do not pour into,
or pour upon, the common people with taxes." If any man can take
sense out of this, he will deserve the praise of invention. But in this
figure, the rulers are supposed to immerse the people, through the instru-
mentality of the oppressive taxes. The literal translation is, "They do
not immerse the common people with taxes." The people, in the case of
oppressive taxation, are not in such figures supposed either to have the
taxes poured upon them, nor themselves to be immersed in the taxes, but
to sink by being weighed down with taxes. The taxes are not the
element in which they sink, but are the instrumental baptizcrs. They
cause the people to sink by their weight. This suits the words: this
84 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
suits the figure : this suits the sense : this suits every example which
refers to debt : this suits the analogy of all other languages. We say
ourselves dipped in debt, drowned in debt, sunk by debt, or sunk in debt.
To sink in debt figures the debt as that in which we sink. It is a deep
water in which we sink. To sink by debt figures the debt as a load on
our shoulders, while we are in deep water. In this view, it is not the
drowning element, but the baptizer or drowner. To be dipped in debt,
supposes that we owe something considerable in proportion to our means.
But we may be dipped without being drowned. The last cannot be
adequately represented by baptizo, except when circumstances render the
meaning definite. The Latin language recognises the same analogy.
Were we at any loss with respect to the meaning of the figure in Greek,
the JE>re alieno demersus of Livy is a commentary. This supposes that
the debtor is plunged or sunk in debt. A man struggling for his life in
the midst of deep water, and at last sinking by exhaustion, is a true pic-
ture of an insolvent debtor. When baptizo occurs in such a situation,
the meaning is substantially given in English by the word oppress, or
overload; but neither of them is a translation. They convey the mean-
ing under the figure of a load; the other gives the idea under the figure
of immersion.
The same observation applies to the next example, which Mr. Ewing
quotes from Josephus, p. 302, translated by Mr. Ewing, " those, indeed,
even without (engaging in) faction, afterwards overburdened or oppressed
(Gr. baptized) the city. The original is stronger than the translation.
It asserts that the robbers ruined, or sunk the city. The passage is
translated by Whiston, " although these very men, besides the seditions
they raised, were otherwise the direct cause of the city's destruction also."
The reference is to a ship sinking from being overburdened, and ill-
managed in the storm, from the dissensions of the crew. In this view,
the figure is striking and beautiful. But how can Mr. Ewing accom-
modate even his own translation to his definition of the meaning of the
word baptizo in such examples? In them, he says, it is used in the
sense of pouring upon and pouring into. What did the robbers pour
upon or into the city ? Besides, there is neither upon nor into here.
If the word baptizo signifies to pour, the translation literally will be,
" they poured the city." This will not accommodate to Mr. Ewing's
own definition of the meaning of the word, more than ours. Again,
even according to Mr. Ewing's own translation of this passage, the word
baptizo here denotes something in excess. What aspect has this towards
the popping system 1 A few drops of water is not an oppressive load.
Josephus uses the same figure on another occasion. Speaking of
Herod's sons, he says, " touto osper teleutaia thuella cheimazomenous tons
neaniskous epebaptisen," p. 704. This is a commentary on the preceding
example, and limits the figure to a ship sinking. In the former case,
the ship was overburdened, and there was a mutiny among the sailors.
Here the ship is attacked by repeated storms, and at last is sunk by a
hurricane. The word clieimazomenous imports, that the young men
had a winter voyage, in which they were attacked by many storms, and
at last were plunged into the abyss by an overwhelming blast. Whiston,
THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 85
who has no purpose to serve, translates it thus : " and this it was that
came as the last storm, and entirely sunk the young men, when they
were in great danger before." What has popping or pouring to say
here?
The very next example which Mr. Ewing quotes in the sense of over-
whclming by being overburdened, definitely refers to sinking in water :
"lam one of those who have been overwhelmed by that great wave of
calamity." Now, what allusion is there here to pouring upon, pouring
into, or pouring of any kind ? Yet this is one of the examples brought
by Mr. Ewing, to prove that the word sometimes signifies to pour upon,
and pour into, till mind and body are overwhelmed. What was poured
upon or poured into this person ? Is it supposed that the wave gradually
poured on him till it sunk him ? Nay, verily. He is said to be bap-
tized under the wave. Indeed, a wave does not cover by pouring, but
by flowing, dashing, or sweeping horizontally. In the overwhelming by
a wave, there is no likeness to pouring or popping, and the object is as
completely covered by the wave, as when it is dipped. Besides, the
person is here supposed to be forced down into the water below, by
the weight of the superincumbent wave. The wave is the baptizer,
not the thing in which he is baptized. He is baptized under the
wave. And can there be a stronger proof that baptism is immersion ?
Let Mr. Ewing perform baptism according to his own translation of
this passage, and he will act as differently from his own mode as from
ours. Let the baptized person be overwhelmed with water, and he will
be buried in water.
Another example of this figure from the same author, is entirely
decisive in our favour. Liban. Ep. 310. " He who bears with diffi-
culty the burden he already has, would be entirely overwhelmed (or
crushed) by a small addition." Is it possible to squeeze the idea of
pouring out of the word in this occurrence? A burden is not poured
on the shoulders. Besides, it is not the putting of the burden on the
man, that is here called baptism. The baptism is effected by the burden
after it is put on. The burden causes the man to sink.
The example which Mr. Ewing quotes from Plutarch, is already
decided by the evidence produced with respect to the allusion when the
figure respects debt : " Oppressed by a debt of 5000 myriads." This
debt was not poured upon him, nor poured into him ; but, oppressed by
it as a load, he sunk or became insolvent. The figure does not represent
the mode of putting the debt on him, for in this there is no likeness. It
represents the debt when on him as causing him to sink.
The example from Heliod. ^Ethiop. lib. iv. can, by no ingenuity, be
reconciled to the assertion which Mr. Ewing brings it to support : " And
overwhelmed with the calamity." If baptizo is supposed to signify to
pour, this passage must be translated, " and poured by or with the
calamity." The calamity is not poured upon him, but the calamity
pours him. But to be immersed, or to sink, by calamity, is good sense,
and a common form of speech. This also is baptism by immersion, and
can be nothing else. What is more common than to speak of sinking
under misfortunes ?
86 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
In like manner Gregory Thaumaturgus, p. 72, speaks of persons as
delivered from the difficulties in which they were immersed. But the
observation of Schelhornius, renders the reference in this figure entirely
definite. After quoting a number of examples in which the word is
applied figuratively to calamities, he observes, with great sagacity, that
the same sentiment is expressed in the same author by the word buthi-
zcsthai, which determines his meaning when he uses the word baptizo to
express the same thing. " Sunk into the deep by a greater wave or tide
of misfortunes." Now, that buthizo denotes to cover, to sink in the abyss,
there can be no doubt. It is a verb formed from the appropriate name
of the great abyss. Baptizo, then, as expressing the same thing, must
agree with it in the general idea, though it characteristically differs from
it in strength of expression. In some circumstances, they may both
refer to the same thing, while in others they have a characteristic dif-
ference. No evidence can be more satisfactory in determining the
meaning of a word than this. It is indirect, and would be hid from
the ordinary reader ; but when sagacity points it out, no candid mind
can reject it. This also confirms an observation which I have made on
another example, namely, that to be baptized by a wave, does not import
that the baptism was in the wave, but under it; and that the wave is
the baptizer, or power that sinks the baptized person under it. Here
the great wave not only covered the person itself, but sunk him below
itself into the deep.
The Septuagint renders Isaiah xxi. 4, " iniquity immerses me," trans-
lated by Mr. Ewing, " iniquity overwhelms me." " Here," he says, " the
idea of plunging into is excluded. The subject of baptism is viewed as
having something poured or brought upon him. He is not popped into
the baptizing substance, but it pops upon him." And pray, Mr. Ewing,
who pops this iniquity upon the baptized person ? Is iniquity itself the
popper ? Is not iniquity the thing with which he is popped ? Is it both
popper and popped ? But if iniquity pops him with itself, does not this
represent sin as coming on the sinner of itself? But Mr. Ewing most
manifestly mistakes the meaning of this phrase. The expression, " ini-
quity baptizeth me," does not mean that iniquity comes on him either
by popping or dipping, either by pouring or sprinkling ; but that his
sin, which originated in himself, and never was put on him in any mode,
sunk him in misery. Our iniquities cause us to sink in deep waters.
This example is, with all others in which the word occurs either in its
literal or figurative use, completely in our favour. Iniquity is the bap-
tizer, and, instead of popping the subjects of its baptism, would sink
them eternally in the lake that burneth with fire and brimstone, were
they not delivered by that which is represented in the baptism of Chris-
tians. Upon the whole, there is not one of all the examples of the
figurative use of this word, which will not fairly explain in perfect
accordance with the literal meaning which we attach to it, while many
of them can bear no other meaning. So far from all explaining with
an allusion to p>ouring , there is not one of them, taking all circumstances
together, will fairly explain in that meaning. There is not one instance
in which Mr. Ewing can show, that the reference must necessarily be to
THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 87
pouring. All languages employ corresponding words in the same
figurative meaning for which we contend in the above examples. No
evidence can be more entirely satisfactory.
The figurative baptism of our Lord is quite in accordance with those
examples in which the word is used for afflictions. Matt. xx. 22 ; Mark
x. 37. In accordance with this view, also, he is represented in the pro-
phetical parts of the Old Testament, as immersed in deep waters. " Save
me, O God, for the waters are come in unto my soul. I sink in deep
mire, where there is no standing ; I am come into deep waters, where
the floods overflow me." Psa. Ixix. 1, 2, 14. In like manner, the afflic-
tions of the church are represented by this figure. " Then the waters
had overwhelmed us, the stream had gone over our soul : then the
proud waters had gone over our soul." Psa. cxxiv. 4, 5, &c. The
enemies of the Lord, also, and of his people, are represented as destroyed
by immersion in deep waters. " Then will I make their waters deep,
and cause their rivers to run like oil, saith the Lord God." Ezek.
xxxii. 14.
The baptism of the Spirit is a figure that has its foundation in
immersion, by which the abundance of his gifts and influences, and the
sanctification of the whole body and soul, are represented. That which
is immersed in a fluid is completely subjected to its influence, as wool
is said to be drunk with the blood of the shell-fish. So the sanctifica-
tion of the believer by the Holy Spirit, through faith in the atoning
blood of Christ, is figuratively called an immersion or a baptism. But
this and the preceding figure I shall meet again, in the examination of
the theory of Mr. Ewing.
Section XTII. — Examination of Mr. Ewing's System. — Having
considered the evidence for the meaning of this word from its occurrences
in Greek writers, I shall now examine the new theory proposed by Mr.
Ewing. This writer pretends to have discovered the signification of
bapto, by reducing it to its radical letters ; and by interchanging labials
and vowels, he forms the word pop from the sound. For an admirable
exposure of this fancy, I refer the reader to Dr. Cox. But the very
attempt is absurd and ludicrous. It could not succeed on any subject,
or with respect to any word. It is entitled to no more consideration,
than an attempt to decide by an appeal to the cry of birds. The thought
of settling a religious controversy about the meaning of a word in a par-
ticular language, by speculations with respect to its radical letters, as
applying to all languages, is certainly one of the wildest conceits that
has been broached in criticism since the birth of that art. Upon this
theory, I shall do no more than make a few observations.
1. It applies etymology utterly beyond its province. Etymology, as
a foundation for argument, can never proceed beyond the root existing
as a tcord in the language, whose meaning can be learned from its use.
To trace a word to a more remote ancestry, is to relate fable for history.
2. When etymologists go farther, they do not pretend to give a
meaning to a word which it is not found to have by use, nor to reject
any meaning which use has assigned. They do not pretend to regulate
88 THE MODE OP BAPTISM.
language by assigning meanings from origin, but, from a comparison
of actually ascertained meanings, to assign a probable root. The value
of their discoveries is not from their authority in settling controversies
about the meanings that use has actually assigned to the words
which they analyze, but from the light which they reflect on the philo-
sophy of language, and the science of mind. So far from having
authority in theological controversy, their researches have no authority
in criticism, with respect to the use of words in classical writers.
Classical writers are an authority to the etymologist, but the etymologist
cannot give law to the classics. The etymologist must collect, and
from use ascertain, the various meanings of a word, — on the authority
of which he may venture a conjecture of an origin higher than that
of any word now in the language. By a comparison of these meanings,
he may discover a common idea, and thereby be enabled to determine
the primary meaning. But without this authority, the primary
meaning can never be ascertained by the mere sound of radical letters.
It may be true that particular radical letters are found in words that
designate a common idea ; but that this is the case, and how far it is the
case, depends on ascertaining from use the actual meaning of the words.
If the meaning of words may lawfully be ascertained from the radical
letters which they contain, instead of the tedious process of reading the
classics, and acquiring the meaning of words from their use, we may
at once proceed to reduce them to their radical sounds, and determine
their import by this philological chemistry. Mr. Ewing not only fails
in this instance of analysis, but utterly mistakes the true object of
etymological researches. His attempt is not calculated to throw light
on the philosophy of language, nor illustrate the processes and relations
of human thought, but converts etymology into a sort of philological
alchemy.
3. Were the origin of bapto to be traced, even with the utmost cer-
tainty, to some other word or words in the language, its meaning in the
language must be determined by its use in the language, and not by its
origin. Words often depart widely in their use from the meaning of
their root. They may drop some idea that was at first essential, or they
may embrace ideas not originally implied.
4. In analyzing any word, the etymologist must be guided not merely
by the consideration that the letters that compose it have the appearance
of indicating a certain origin, but, especially as a ground-work, that
such an origin corresponds to its known and acknowledged mean-
ing. And when we have found such an origin to a word, it is of no
authority in argument, as it takes the meaning of the word for granted.
If pop were the ascertained and acknowledged meaning of bapto, the
etymologist might employ his art to reduce the one word to the other.
But even then, the evidence that the one was the parent of the other,
would depend on the fact that the meaning was ascertained by use, and
could not rest on the coincidence in sounds. That rain comes from
raino, to sprinkle, and plunge from pliino, &c, depends on the fact, that
the meaning of the one word is known by use to correspond to the
meaning of the other. Were there no such correspondence in known
THE MODE OP BAPTISM. 89
signification, the correspondence in sound would be no foundation for
derivation. Many words correspond as nearly in sound, which have no
relation. In deriving a word, therefore, by reducing it to its radical
letters, the etymologist, if he acts agreeably to the sound principles of
his art, must have all the meanings of the derived word previously
ascertained, as a ground-work for his conclusions : they are data
which in his process must be taken for granted. But if the meanings
of a word are taken for granted in this process, the object of the process
cannot be to ascertain a doubtful meaning. If the word bapto has not
from use all the meanings which Mr. Ewing assigns to it, no etymo-
logical process can give any of these meanings to it, for they must be all
taken for granted, as a foundation for his deductions.
5. This theory assigns to bapto, as its primary meaning, a significa-
tion which use has not given it in a single instance. Indeed, though
the author endeavours to conform the examples to this primary accepta-
tion, he does not pretend to have derived it from the examples. He
concludes that the primary meaning of this word is pop, from the sound,
and from its correspondence to the other meanings. That bapto has
such a primary meaning there is no evidence. If pop really embraced
all the significations assigned by Mr. Ewing to bapto, he might allege,
that it is probable that the word once •signified to pop; but this would
not be proof that it had any such signification during the period to
which the writings now extant in the Greek language belong. This
could be proved only by examples from these authors. Whatever is
the origin of the word bapto, it never signifies pop.
6. To prove that any meaning is sanctioned by use, it is not sufficient
that there are examples of its occurrence which will explain on this
meaning. There is no word of frequent occurrence, which in some
situations might not bear a false translation, or explain in a sense which
it really never has, without making nonsense. Nay, a false translation
of a word may, in many situations, make good sense, and even express
a scriptural truth, though not the truth of the passage. Before the
authority of use, therefore, can be pleaded for a meaning, a passage must
be produced in which the word must have the meaning assigned. This
is self-evident. I state it, therefore, as a canon, or first principle of
criticism, that in controversy a word occurring frequently in
THE LANGUAGE IS NEVER TO BE TAKEN ARBITRARILY IN A SENSE WHICH
IT CANNOT BE SHOWN INCONTESTABLY TO HAVE IN SOME OTHER PASSAGE.
An acknowledged sense is necessary as a foundation on which to rest
the supposition, that in the contested passage it may have the signification
assigned. There is no ground to allege that the word has a signification
in the contested passage, which it is not proved to have in some other
place. It may have this authority and fail ; but without this it cannot
succeed. A meaning not so proved has no right to be heard in contro-
versy. I have limited the canon to controversy, but, in fact, it extends
in some measure to matters in which men do not find an inducement to
dispute. Many of the beasts and fishes and fowls and plants mentioned
in the Old Testament, cannot be now exactly and confidently ascertained
by us, for want of this criterion ; and although there is no warm
12
90 THE MODE OP BAPTISM.
controversy about these things, it is because there is no temptation
from the subject. If a word occurs so seldom in what remains of any
language, and in such circumstances as cannot definitely determine its
meaning, nothing can be legitimately rested on it in controversy. Now
this canon sweeps away not only Mr. Ewing's theory, but all other
systems that give a meaning to baptizo, different from that for which we
contend. There is not one instance in all the Greek language in which
it necessarily signifies to pour, sprinkle, &c. Our opponents have not
an acknowledged foundation on which to rest the opinion, that, with
respect to the ordinance of baptism, the word baptizo may have the
meaning for which they contend ; for in no instance can it be proved to
have such a meaning. On the contrary, even Mr. Ewing himself, the
boldest of all the critics on that side of the question, does not deny that
this word sometimes signifies to dip ; nay, he himself gives many exam-
ples in which it must have this signification.
7. I will state another canon equally self-evident, and equally fatal to
the doctrine of Mr. Ewing, and all our opponents : a word that applies
to two modes can designate neithek. The same word cannot express
different modes, though a word not significant of mode may apply to all
modes. Wash, for instance, may refer to the action designated by it,
in whatever mode it may be performed. Whether it is done by dipping
or by pouring, the word wash does not assert. It is indifferent as to
mode, although even here one mode is more common than another.
Stain, in like manner, asserts nothing of mode, but applies to all modes.
A thing may be stained by sprinkling, by pouring, or by dipping. Wet
also applies to all modes. A thing may be wetted by dipping, by pour-
ing, by sprinkling, by the insensible distillation of the dew, by damp.
The word expresses the effect only, and says nothing of the mode. But
it would be both false and absurd to say that these words signify all
these modes. They express nothing of mode. Modes are essentially
different from one another, and have nothing in common. One word,
then, cannot possibly distinguish them. The name of a mode is the
word which expresses it as distinguished from other modes. But it is
impossible for the same word to express the distinction of two modes.
It might more reasonably be supposed, that the word black may also be
employed to signify the idea denoted by white, as well as the idea which
it is employed to designate, because black and white admit of degrees ;
but there are no degrees in mode. Without reference, then, to the
practice of the language, on the authority of self-evident truth, I assert
that bapto cannot signify both dip, and pour or sprinkle. I assert, that
in no language under heaven can one zoord designate two modes. Now
we have the confession of our opponents themselves, that baptizo signi-
fies to dip. If so, it cannot also signify to pour or sprinkle.
8. The various meanings that Mr. Ewing assigns to this word, will
not derive from pop. His theory, then, has not the merit even of con-
sistency, which a false theory may have. He asserts, indeed, that all
the meanings which he admits may easily be reduced to this word ;
and that each holds of it, independently of all the rest. But how does
he make out this assertion ? By making as many compounds cfi pop, as
THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 91
bapto is supposed to have meanings. In each of these meanings, it
becomes, in fact, a different word. Pop in, pop out ; pop up, pop down ;
pop backward, pop forward, &c, are different compound words, as much
as diffuse is different from infuse. Now, if the word bapto signifies
merely to pop, it cannot signify to pop up, to pop down, &c, by its own
power. It must have something added to give it such a meaning. It is
false, then, to say that bapto has all these significations. But if bapto
signifies to pour, it does so without the aid of any other word : if it
signifies to sprinkle, it must do so by itself. It signifies to dip, without
the aid of any other word. It is true, indeed, that baptizo admits com-
position with prepositions, but this is not to enable it to signify to dip :
for if this were the case, it could never have that signification without
the preposition in composition. But it has this signification where there
is no such composition. Indeed, there are but few of its occurrences
in which it admits the composition. It was indeed a conceit of the
great Dr. Owen, that baptizo cannot denote to dip, except in composi-
tion with en or eis. But this is contradicted by use, and by the analogy
of other words, as is well remarked by Mr. Booth. Besides, if bapto
signifies to pop, and if pop can apply to none of the meanings which bapto
is said to have, without the aid of a preposition, then it cannot be said
that bapto signifies to pour or sprinkle. It only signifies a part of that idea.
Again, when the compound is formed, it will not produce the mean-
ings contended for. To pop upon does not signify to sprinkle, for there
may be a popping upon, when there is no sprinkling, though sprinkling
may be performed by popping upon. In the very example alleged by
Mr. Ewing, there is popping upon without sprinkling.
" A fellow finding somewhat prick him, popped his finger upon the
place." Did he sprinkle his finger upon the place? But if there is
popping upon without sprinkling, then popping upon will not signify
sprinkling without something to limit it still farther. Granting, then,
that bapto signifies to pop, for this very reason it cannot signify to sprinkle.
In the same manner it may be proved, that if bapto signifies to pop in
or into, it does not signify to pour ; for there may be popping in or into
without pouring. Mr. Ewing's own example proves this :
"He that kill'd my kin?,
Popt in between th' election and my hopes."
There was no pouring here. But a word that does not necessarily imply
pouring, cannot signify pouring.
Even with the addition of the word loatcr itself, the idea is not made
out. If we substitute loatcr for finger in the above example, we shall
fail in the attempt to express sprinkling. The fellow might pop water
upon the place without sprinkling. In like manner, there may even be
popping into water, without immersion. When a boy pops a duck into
the water, she does not sink. Mr. Ewing, then, has failed in every point
of view. Even the expression, " he popped water into his turned up face,"
Mr. Ewing's favourite expression for baptizing, does not express either
pouring or sprinkling. So far from necessarily implying that the water
was poured or sprinkled, it naturally implies that the water was cast by
92 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
a jerk or slight dash, and not by drops, or by a stream. Instead, then,
of accounting for all the meanings attached by Mr. Ewing to the word
bapto, it does not account for any one of these meanings.
Still less will this derivation account for dyeing as a meaning of bapto.
How is it possible, that if bapto primarily signifies to pop, it could also
receive the signification to dye ? Mr. Ewing answers this, by supposing
that a thing may be dyed, by having the colouring liquor popped upon
it, and by the supposition, that the art of dyeing was suggested by the
accidental staining of things by the juice of fruits. But this account is
totally unphilosophical. All this may be true, yet be insufficient to
account for the fact. Accidental and infrequent union cannot originate
a meaning founded on such union. It is not priority of the mode of
doing anything, but the frequency of doing in a mode, that will confer
the name of the mode on the thing effected in such mode. This is the
voice both of philosophy and of fact. Thus, cano, to sing, came to signify
to foretell, because prophets uttered their predictions in song. This
principle operates very extensively in language. I have already exem-
plified the thing in many instances. Bapto, to dip, comes naturally to
signify to dye, from the frequency of dyeing by dipping. But there
never was such a frequency of dyeing by sprinkling, as would, on philo-
sophical principles, give the name of the mode to the thing effected in
that mode. Besides, if bapto primarily signifies to pop, and if it came
to signify to dye, because dyeing was usually performed by popping,
then dyeing must have been performed neither by pouring nor sprinkling,
for popping, as I have shown, is different from both. It is impossible
philosophically to account for dyeing as a meaning of bapto on any other
principle, than that this word primarily signifies to dip.
Again, if bapto came to signify to dye, because that the art of dyeing
was suggested by the accidental stains from the bruising of fruits, why
did not pop accompany its relative in this signification? Why did not
Milton say, " colours popped in heaven," instead of " colours dipped in
heaven V There is no end to the absurdity of this fantastic theory ; it
is a mine of inconsistency that never could be exhausted. This is the
necessary condition of all false theories. However plausible they may
be made by the ingenuity of their inventors, they must contain incon-
sistency that will sometimes pop out its head, and show itself even to
the most indolent readers. But truth is consistent ; and, although many
apparent difficulties may at first sight occur, they will gradually disap-
pear, as light is cast on the subject by inquiry. Even when its defenders,
by inadvertency, couple it with something extrinsic, that tends to obscure
and mar its evidence, the ingenuity of opponents will only have the
good effect of separating the chaff from the wheat.
But no absurdity can vie with that of supposing that a word of so
peculiar and restricted a meaning as pop is represented to be, should be
accounted so generic, that it becomes the liege lord of innumerable
different significations, that do not arise the one out of the other, but
hold immediately of itself. Nay, according to Mr. Ewing's philosophy,
it might become the liege lord of half the language. Instead of originally
representing a very generic idea, it is supposed primarily to signify a
THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 93
particular sound, — a small smart quick sound. It is said to be a word
" formed from the sound." All its applications agree to this; and pop
itself never came to have the acceptations that Mr. Ewing supposes
bapto to have. We never find this word applied to any things, but such
as are of a trifling or playful nature. We never hear of a shipwreck as
a popping of the ship into the deep. This would be ludicrous. Pop,
instead of being a generic word, is as specific a word, as can be ima-
gined, and never was actually extended to serious or important things,
except to burlesque them. Indeed, instead of being a liege lord, con-
ferring ample and separate territories on many great vassals, it is so very
confined in its own territory, that it has a domain hardly sufficient for a
walk, to give it an airing. To enable it to go a little into the world, it
is obliged to take assistance from the prepositions. Mr. Ewing himself
cannot send it abroad without escorting it with up or down, backwards
or forivards, in or into, off or upon, &c. A word so limited in its own
territories is ill fitted to become, as liege lord, proprietor of a great part
of the language, — nay, of every language ; for Mr. Swing's chemistry
must extract the same thought from all languages. The author, indeed,
while he declares that each of the vassals is independent of all the rest,
and holds immediately of the liege lord, inconsistently gives it a process
from the particular sound originally denoted by it, to f* the noise caused
by the agency of body in motion upon body, and that in any direction
whatever." Here we have a process that by gradually dropping particu-
larities, and encroaching on territories not originally included in its
kingdom, gives it a generic meaning. Here every step in the process is
connected with that which precedes and depends on it. But let us look
at the generic meaning which we have found by this process. It is so
generic, as to disclaim all kindred with pop, according to the use of that
word in the English language. Mr. Ewing's definition assigns this word
to express " the noise caused by the agency of body in motion upon
body." Now, has pop actually so generic a meaning? If so, we may
speak of the popping of a cart, when we mean to express the creaking of
its wheels ; for this is " noise caused by the agency of body in motion
upon body." In short, every noise from motion may be called popping.
But with all the impudence of this little playful word, it has never had
the boldness to pop itself into such a province.
Again, if bapto signifies primarily to pop, and if pop signifies primarily
to make " a small smart quick sound," and if all the various meanings of
bapto hold of it in this signification, then they must all be reducible to
the primary signification, namely, " a small smart quick sound," without
any relation to one another. The signification to dye must be referred
immediately to this particular sound, and not to the accidental bruising
of fruits. Mr. Ewing inconsistently makes the various meanings hold of
pop in its generic meaning, acquired by process, instead of its primary,
particular motion. Nay, he absurdly makes the various meanings of
bapto hold of the English pop, and that in a meaning far removed from
its primary meaning. No matter that it was as true that pop had the
generic meaning acquired by process from a particular one, as it is
manifestly false ; this would say nothing to the processes of bapto. Instead
94 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
of tracing the progress of pop from " a small smart quick sound," to
a " sound caused by the motion of body in motion on body," let Mr.
Ewing trace the progress of bapto itself. It is with this the controversy
is concerned, and not with the mutations in the meaning of an English
word. Let him show such a primary meaning in bapto, and then let
him trace it through all the rivulets derived from the fountain. Can
anything be more obvious, than that if bapto primarily signifies to pop,
and if pop primarily signifies to make a small smart quick sound, bapto
cannot be admitted as proprietor of any other territory, till it is proved
by use to possess it? Is the harmony between bapto and pop like that
of the monads of the soul and body, according to the system of Leibnitz,
that the one must necessarily accompany the other in all its most
fantastic movements? Can anything be more absurd, than to squeeze
pop out of bapto, on the authority of sound and primary acceptation, yet
in the theory founded on this, to reason not from the primary meaning
of pop, but from a meaning acquired by process? Can anything be
more absurd, than to pretend to determine the different meanings of a
Greek word, by the mutations of meaning in the English word derived
from it?
9. If pop originally denoted " a small smart quick sound," as is very
likely, then there is no reason to extract pop out of bapto, for bapto never
denotes such a sound, — nor any sound. Mr. Ewing himself does not
pretend to allege one example in which bapto has the meaning which
pop originally implied. On the authority, then, of the coincidence of
primary meaning, no relation can be found between them.
10. The construction of the words in connexion with bapto, in many
of its occurrences, contradicts this theory. Mr. Ewing says, " a person
or thing may be either popped into water, or may have water popped
upon or into him." Very true, but the same syntax will not pop him
into water, that will pop water upon or into him. According to Mr.
Ewing, to pop into water is to dip. If so, the examples of dipping, as
denoted by this phrase, are innumerable. Let any person examine the
number which I have produced. But can Mr. Ewing produce out of all
Greek literature, a single example of the phrase popping water upon a
person or thing, when the verb is bapto ? Baptizing water upon a person
or thing, is a phrase that never occurs. This would be the baptism of
the water, not of the person. To pop umterupon a man, in Greek, would
be baptein udor ep anthropon, if baptcin is the Greek word for pop :
but such a phraseology is not to be found in all the Greek language.
11. The many examples in which baptizo is applied to great, serious,
and terrific objects, contradict this theory. Mr. Ewing, indeed, has
foreseen this storm ; and to prevent his theory from being overwhelmed
by it, has invented a groundless distinction between what he calls the
proper and lax sense of the word. " It is a word," he says, " which
properly denotes operations on a small scale, and of a gentle nature : it is
in a secondary sense that it comes to be applied to the vast and the ter-
rible." But can it apply to the vast and the terrible, if it does not either
include the vast and the terrible in its primary meaning ; or, by forsak-
ing its primary meaning, has it, by philosophical procedure, advanced to
THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 95
new territories ? Words often advance to meanings very distant from
their roots ; but when they do so, they give up their first acceptation,
and take the new meaning as their proper acceptation. Candlestick,
for instance, at first denoted a utensil of wood; it now denotes the
utensil, without respect to the material of which it is composed : but it
has forsaken its ancient meaning altogether. It cannot be said that it
properly signifies an implement made of wood, for holding a candle ;
and in a secondary sense, the same utensil of any materials. It now
as properly signifies the utensil when it is made of metal, as when it is
made of wood; of gold, as when it is made of an osier.
In this every thing is natural, and the philosophy of the progress
is intelligible to the child: but let Mr. Ewing point out any philoso-
phical principle that would lead baptizo from such a primary sense
as he contends for, to the secondary sense which he here assigns. Is
there any principle to conduct the operation in extending the word
pop-gun to signify a cannon 1 He does not pretend that this process
has been verified in the term pop. To employ pop in this way, would
be ludicrous. The same must be the case with bapto, if it signifies
to pop.
But if there were any principle to lead to this process, when it had
taken place, the first meaning must be given up ; for they are utterly
irreconcilable. Let Mr. Ewing point out any principle in the human
mind that would naturally conduct this process. Let him point out
any example in any language, in which a word at the same period of
its history has such primary and secondary meanings. Can anything
be more extravagant than the supposition, that this word properly
denotes operations on a small scale, and, as a secondary meaning, things
of a vast and terrific nature? If it has the one meaning it cannot have
the other. There is no philosophy in this distinction. What a wild
thought, that the noise of a pop-gun, and destruction by the overwhelm-
ing torrents of boiling lava from the crater of a burning mountain, may
be expressed by the same word ! Mr. Ewing, indeed, acknowledges that
it is not usual in English to say, " he popped upon me with an over-
whelming flood." But he might have added, that this could not be said
in any language, employing a word corresponding to pop. This word
cannot apply to such things, from the inconsistency between them and
the ideas which it denotes : and there must be the same inconsistency
with respect to the words that correspond to pop in all languages.
Mr. Ewing calls this secondary sense, " a figurative, an exaggerated
rather than a proper and natural sense." But if it is a secondary sense,
it is not a figurative sense, for a secondary sense is a proper sense ; and
a figurative acceptation of a word is no sense of the word at all. When
a word is used hyperbolically, it still retains its proper sense, and from
this circumstance the figure has its beauty. When the Psalmist repre-
sents the mountains as leaping, the word leaping still retains its proper
meaning, but the motion of a mountain in an earthquake is elegantly
figured as leaping. The word leap does not. here come by exaggeration
to denote the motion of a mountain in an earthquake. In like manner,
when a wild Irishman says that he was killed when he had received a
96 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
severe beating, the word hill is not diminished in its meaning, but what
is not hilling is, by a lively imagination, so called for the sake of energy.
It is absurd to speak of the exaggerated or diminished meaning of a
word. The exaggeration or the diminution is not in the words at all.
I have already pointed out the true distinction between BAPTO and
BAPTIZO. The former signifies to dip, the latter to cause to dip. Now
these significations equally apply to small objects and to great ; but
while the latter may be applied to the smallest object, it is peculiarly
fitted to denote the immersion of objects greater than can be lifted in
the hand. Accordingly, we find that baptizo, while it is sometimes applied
to the smallest objects, is much more usually than bapto applied to large
objects. It more exactly applies to the immersion in baptism, because
the baptized person is not taken up by the baptizer, but caused to sink
into the water by the force impressed. It is baptizo, also, as any one
may see by a look at the examples which I have quoted, that is applied
to the sinking of ships, and the destruction of things not lifted out of the
water. This is a distinction philosophical, intelligible, useful, and
agreeable to fact. Mr. Ewing's distinction has nothing to recommend it
but the necessity of his theory. Josephus speaks as literally when he
designates the sinking of a ship by the word baptizo, as when he speaks
of the immersion of the smallest object.
12. Mr. Ewing mistakes the effect that prepositions have in compo-
sition with the verbs. He seems to suppose, that they always modify
or give direction to the action of the verb as simply as the English pre-
positions. But a slight examination of this subject will convince any
one that they have a variety of power unknown to our language. Let
us take one or two examples : eita thcrmous artous ex oinou melanos hat
elaiou apobapton. Here it is obvious apo does not direct its force in
conjunction with the verb, upon the object of the verb; but marks the
departure of the object from the thing in which the action was produced.
The latter is without doubt the effect of the preposition after the verb,
ex oinou, out of wine. It is not " dip the loaves into the wine," but " dip
them out of the wine." The point to which our attention is here called
by the expression, is the departure of the object out of the thing in
which the action of the verb was produced. This implies that it was
in the wine, but does not express it. Now, the preposition in composi-
tion may unite with the preposition after the verb, as is frequently the
case, when the same preposition that is used in composition is also used
after the verb, as cmbaptizo eis thalassan, and our own phrases, the
tyrant was expelled out of the hingdom, — he infused courage into the
soldiers, &c. &c.
Whatever is the meaning of the participle in the above example, the
preposition in composition with it cannot exert its influence on the object
of the verb. We could not say, popping from the loaves out of the wine.
The expression is on the same principle that operates in the phrase,
"shall dip his finger from the oil," Lev. xiv. 16; and "from the blood,"
Lev. iv. 17.
Eis and en occur very frequently in composition with this verb ; but
their effect is quite obvious : apo is less frequent because it is only on
THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 97
the above principles that it applies. Epi is still less frequent. It does not
imply that the baptizing substance was put upon the thing baptized, but
that the thing baptized was put upon the baptizing substance. " Dip-
ping a piece of fine linen into moist Eretrian earth," &c. Here the linen
was baptized upon the earth, and not the earth upon the linen.
Now, this is Mr. Ewing's favourite compound for denoting poptism.
To pop upon must mean to pop the water on the person. But let the
verb be translated as he will, it cannot comport in this example with
this view. The Eretrian earth was not to be popped upon the linen, for
it was a mass of moist earth ; and it is not said that the linen was to be
baptized upon with the earth, but into the earth. Now, Mr. Ewing sup-
poses that when the verb is compounded with epi, the baptizing substance
is preceded by with. " He popped upon me with an overwhelming
flood." But this is not the syntax in any of the examples in which this
compound word occurs. It is not baptize with, but baptize in or into.
This is a capital mistake, and the detection of it leaves him without aid
from his favourite compound. To baptize upon, in the construction in
which it always stands, is as inconsistent with popping, as into would
have been. Indeed, into is in this example expressly used before the
baptizing substance. If the linen was to be baptized upon moist earth,
it was also to be baptized into the earth.
The expression in Josephus in which this compound is used, to which
Mr. Ewing seems to refer, is as little in unison with his doctrine : " This,
as the last storm, immersed the young men," &,c. Here the storm is
not the baptizing substance, but the baptizer, and it did not pop itself upon
them, for the verb is in the active voice. If, then, it signifies to pop, the
popper must pop something on them. What is it, then, that the storm
pops on them different from itself? To express Mr. Ewing's meaning,
the syntax must be quite different. Some popper must " pop the young
men with a storm," &c, or it must be, " the young men were popped
upon toith a storm." But instead of this the storm itself is the baptizer,
and as their baptism was their destruction, it must have been immersion.
Epi, then, cannot here import, as Mr. Ewing's doctrine supposes, that the
baptizing substance was popped upon the baptized ; for the baptizing
substance was the sea in which they perished, and the storm was the
baptizer that sunk them. Mr. Ewing's own translation of the passage
cannot give him relief. " This, as the last storm, epibaptized or over-
ichelmed the young men, already weather-beaten." Now what did the
storm baptize upon them ? With what did it ovenohelm them ? With
itself, Mr. Ewing may say. I answer, No. The verb is in the active
voice, but to express this meaning would require the middle. If the
storm popped them, it must have popped them with something different
from itself. Besides, the allusion is evidently to a ship sinking in the
sea by a storm. The sea is the baptizing substance, the storm is the
baptizer, and the effect of such a baptism is destruction. Epi, then, is
evidently intended to mark the violence of the pressure of the storm on
the ship, as the force of the agent in effecting the action of the verb.
Again, if cpibaptize signifies to pop upon, how is it that it here imports
to overwhelm ? Can any two ideas be more inconsistent than that of
13
98 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
popping upon, and that of overwhelming? Can two extremes meet?
How does overwhelm hold of pop 1 I have already shown that no pro-
cess can account for two meanings so discordant, and that no figure will
justify it. This is contrary to a canon as clear as any in language, —
That which designates one extreme, cannot at the same time
designate the other. As I have observed in another place, many
words may apply to both extremes, but this can never happen except when
they designate neither. To dip, for instance, applies to an immersed world,
and it applies to an immersed insect. But it designates neither. How
ludicrous is the expression, the storm popped upon the young men !
Even were we to grant for a moment, that pop should enlarge its signifi-
cation so as to apply to the most violent storm, still it would express
only the force of the storm, and not its effect. The translation would
then be, " the storm rushed on them with tremendous violence ;" but
this would not import the effect of the storm, as issuing in their destruc-
tion. In many ways they might escape from the greatest storm ever
known. Jonah was even cast into the sea, and yet escaped. Even when
the whistle becomes a tempest, it will not serve Mr. Ewing.
The same observations will apply to the other example from Josephus:
" That he would baptize or sink the city." How is it that Mr. Ewing
has translated this as if the verb was in the passive voice, and as if
Josephus himself was not supposed the baptizer? " For the city," says
Mr. Ewing, " must be epibaptized or overwhelmed." Do not the people,
in their expostulations with Josephus, in order to dissuade him from
leaving them, tell him, that if he should depart, he would himself sink
or epibaptize the city ? His desertion of the city would be the means
of its ruin. He is then represented as doing the thing that would be
the consequence of his departure.
But how is this, as Mr. Ewing says, an overwhelming by rushing or
pouring upon ? Did Josephus, by popping off from the city, pop upon it
with such violence as to overwhelm it ? This surely implies the mys-
teries of transubstantiation. Josephus popped nothing on the city by
leaving it, nor did he rush or pour on it with violence by flying from it.
Epi, then, in this compound, can afford no countenance to the supposi-
tion, that in baptism the water is popped or poured upon the baptized
person. To suit the example to this purpose, Josephus must have been
represented as pouring the baptizing substance on the city.
Upon the whole, Mr. Ewing labours under a capital mistake with
respect to the effect of the prepositions prefixed to this verb. The
Greek prepositions have a much more extensive and varied power in
composition than ours have, in such compounds as pop in, pop out, &c.
Epibaptize, which he supposes expressly to imply that the water is
poured on the baptized, does not in one instance occur in syntax suitable
to his interpretation, even although the meaning of the verb were
doubtful.
13. In this theory of Mr. Ewing, we have the strongest evidence that
our opponents are not themselves satisfied with any mode of defence
hitherto devised. We have Mr. Ewing's own virtual acknowlegment,
that the ground on which pouring has till his time been held for bap-
THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 99
tism, is not firm. Can there be a more certain sign that he himself was
dissatisfied with the usual view of the subject, than his having recourse
to so extravagant a theory ? If he has taken to sea in this bark of bul-
rushes, must he not have considered the ship which he left as being in
the very act of sinking? I call on the unlearned Christian to consider
this circumstance. What must be the necessities of a cause that requires
such a method of defence ! This theory is not only unsound, and un-
supported by the Greek language, but it is ludicrous in the extreme.
Since the heavens were stretched over the earth, there has not been such
a chimerical scheme embodied under the name of criticism. The thought
that the ordinances of Christ could be squeezed out of the radical sounds
contained in words, or that the actual meaning of words may be autho-
ritatively determined by such a species of etymology, is frightfully fana-
tical. Sober criticism can lend no ear to such dreams. What, then,
must be the desperate situation of that cause that takes aid from such a
theory as that of Mr. Ewing !
The passages which Mr. Ewing brings forward in support of his
theory are already mostly considered. I shall, therefore, only touch on
a few of his observations on them. There is one rule of interpretation
which Mr. Ewing prescribes to us, at which I am beyond measure asto-
nished. Though he does not formally state it as a canon, yet he reasons
on the supposition, that we are obliged to find an exact parallel for im-
mersion, with all its circumstances, in the purifications of the heathens
or of the Jews. Having quoted the passage from Herodotus, which is
so decisive in our favour, he endeavours to lessen its value in the follow-
ing words : " After all," says he, " there is one very manifest point of
difference. The person who adopts this summary method of purifica-
tion, performs the operation for himself. The immersion of one person
by another, for any purpose except that of medical treatment, or that of
murder, I can discover in no writings whatever, sacred or profane."
And does Mr. Ewing really think that any such authority is necessary
to determine the meaning of this word? Must we seek for a model for
Christian baptism, either among Jewish or heathen rites? I care not
if there never had been a human being immersed in water since the
creation : if the word denotes immersion, and if Christ enjoins it, I will
contend for it as confidently as if all nations, in all ages, had been daily
in the practice of baptizing each other. Whether I am to immerse
myself in baptism, or be immersed by another, I am to learn from the
Scripture accounts of the ordinance, not either from the meaning of the
word, or the practice of nations. The demand of Mr. Ewing is unreason-
able beyond anything that I recollect to have found in controversy. If it
could not be accounted for by the strength of prejudice, it would indicate a
want of discernment that no man will impute to Mr. Ewing. The man who
demands, in order to the proof of immersion in baptism, that a complete
model of the ordinance be found in Jewish or heathen purifications, must
either labour under the influence of the strongest bias, or be strangely
deficient in the powers of discrimination. " For any purpose except that
of medical treatment, or that of murder ! ! !" And is not any of these cases
as authoritative as an immersion for purification ? Is not the immersion
100 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
of a man for medical purposes, as much an immersion, and as authori-
tative to show the meaning of the word, as an immersion for superstitious
purposes? Examples are useful to settle the meaning of the word, not
as a model for the ordinance. The dipping of the flea's foot in Aristo-
phanes, is as authoritative as the immersion of a Pharisee for purification.
But what heightens the extravagance of this demand is, that while
Mr. Ewing calls for a complete model for Christian immersion in the
purifications of Jews and heathens, he is so easily satisfied with evidence
on his own side of the question, that he has found popping water on
the turned up face to be the baptism of the New Testament. Here he
has the eyes of a lynx, for he has seen what I believe no other man ever
pretended to see in the Scriptures.
But it seems, that even a complete model in heathen purifications
would not serve us. Nay, if we have been condemned for want of a
heathen pattern for baptism, we are also condemned for having it.
"There is also," says Mr. Ewing, " a point, not of difference, .but of
resemblance, between this example and an anti-psedobaptist's baptism,
which seems to have very much astonished the historian, namely, the
person's plunging himself, ' with his very clothes on.' It was evidently
regarded as a singular and monstrous sort of purification by this heathen
writer ; and we shall meet with abundant evidence that it was never so
seen in Israel." Here we are condemned for observing baptism according
to the model, as we were before condemned for coming short of the model.
Surely I may answer such reasoning in the language of Christ: "We
have piped unto you, and ye have not danced ; we have mourned unto
you, and ye have not lamented." As long as the mind is in a state to
make such objections, it would not yield though one should rise from
the dead. A heathen thought purification with the clothes on, singular
and monstrous. Must Christ's ordinance conform to heathen notions of
purification ? But, Mr. Ewing, how can you assert that Herodotus
regarded this as monstrous ? There is no such thing said, nor implied.
The historian does not mention the circumstance as monstrous, or in any
degree improper, but as an evidence of the abhorrence that the Egyptians
have for swine, and the deep pollution contracted by their touch. The
thing that was singular and strange is, that the person touching the
swine supposed the pollution to affect his very garments, or that it was
as necessary to baptize them as himself. The polluted Egyptian bap-
tized himself, with his very clothes, that he might purify his clothes,
which he considered to be defiled as well as himself. The Christian is
baptized with his clothes on, not indeed to imitate the example of the
Egyptian, but for the sake of decency. Had Christian baptism been
like Egyptian baptism, an ordinance in which every believer was to
baptize himself, there would have been no need to baptize with the
clothes on. The thing, then, that is strange and singular in the Egyptian
baptism, is not strange in Christian baptism. It would be strange if
persons bathing alone in a retired place should encumber themselves
with a bathing dress ; but it would not be strange to find them using a
bathing dress on a crowded strand. A little discrimination under the
influence of candour would have taken away all monstrosity from this
THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 101
example. There is nothing in the historian that in the remotest degree
gives ground for Mr. Evving's assertion. Is this a candid or a Christian
way of representing evidence ? If men will indulge themselves in such
liberties with the documents on which they found their report of anti-
quity, no credit could be given to history. Mr. Ewing here represents
Herodotus as regarding the circumstance as monstrous, without the
smallest authority from his words. Is not this bearing false witness 1
The intention, I am convinced, is not to misrepresent evidence. Yet
evidence is misrepresented, where nothing but bias could discover the
supposed meaning. Well may a Roman Catholic see all the doctrines
of popery in the Scriptures, when Mr. Ewing can find the circumstance
of bathing with the clothes on, designated as monstrous in this language
of Herodotus. If, in all the passages which I have considered, I have
made one such misrepresentation, let me be put to shame. I may mis-
take the meaning of my author, but a mistake that indicates a bias, I
hope no man will be able to find in my criticism. I would let baptism
and the Bible itself sink, rather than force evidence. What I demand
from my antagonist, I will grant him in return. I will not lay down one
law for him, and walk by another myself. I will do all in my power to
save the Israelitish spies ; but if this cannot be done without a falsehood,
let them perish.
The same uncandid and unreasonable mode of reasoning is again
resorted to in the following language. Formerly he had complained
that the examples implying immersion, do not respect cases in which one
person baptized another, but each baptized himself. " Here," he says,
" it must be confessed, that in some of the cases, there are dippers as
well as dipped." Now, if there is, in any instance, the model he requires,
why does he complain, that in some instances it is not to be found 1 Does
he suppose that every instance must contain the full model, or that one
instance is not sufficient for the purpose, even were it necessary to pro-
duce such a model from heathenism ? If, in one case, he finds a dipper,
is it not enough to show that the word may be applied to the ordinance
of Christian immersion ? But whether a person dips himself, or is dip-
ped by another, has no more to do with the meaning of this word, than
the name of the baptized person has. Nor can an example from heathen
or Jewish purification, that would coincide in every particular with the
external form of the ordinance, be of more authority as a model, than
an example of plunging a pick-pocket in the mire. To speak in the
above way, then, is totally to misconceive the nature of the evidence on
which a just conclusion can be founded.
Mr. Ewing complains, that " the other cases also, are not those of
voluntary plunging, but of fatal sinking." But is not immersion
immersion, whether the immersed person rises or sinks? We want no
aid from these examples but what they can give, what they cannot refuse
to give, and what our opponents admit that they give. The examples in
which the word applies to sinking, prove that the word implies dipping.
This is all we want from them. That the baptized person is not to lie
at the bottom, but to rise up out of the waters, we learn not from the
word, but from the accounts of the ordinance. We wish no model in
102 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
heathenism, as an authority for the ordinance of baptism. This we
have in the Scriptures. We are indebted to the heathen writers only
for the meaning of the word. It is altogether astonishing that a man
like Mr. Ewing can indulge in such trifling. If all his requirements
were necessary, no ordinance of Christ could be proved. But happily
his requirements are only for his opponents. They do not regulate his
own conduct. He relaxes from his rigour, wherever his popping scheme
comes to the trial. If one instance could be brought, in which this dis-
puted word necessarily signifies to pour or sprinkle, though it related to
a person sprinkling himself, what would he say, should I object that this
was no authority for one person to sprinkle another ? Very true, he would
doubtless say, but it proves that the word signifies to sprinkle. I have
other ways of learning whether baptism is a sprinkling of one's self, or
a sprinkling of one by another. In like manner, the examples of invo-
luntary immersion prove to me the meaning of the word. From Christ
and his apostles I learn that Christian immersion is neither involuntary
nor fatal. It is a grievous thing to be obliged to notice such reasoning.
Mr. Ewing exclaims, " Is this the pattern of baptizers and baptized?"
No indeed, Mr. Ewing, this is not the pattern, and I never heard of any
who made this a model. But these examples are authority to show the
meaning of the word. Had Mr. Ewing produced one instance in which
the disputed word signifies to sprinkle or ponr, and that instance referred
to bespattering with filth, what would he say were we to exclaim, "Is
this the pattern of baptism by. sprinkling?" Would he not pounce
upon us with the reply : " This determines the meaning of the word,
which is all any examples from heathen writers can do. That pure
water is to be used in baptism, we learn from the Scriptures." And
why does he not use common sense in his objections ?
" Shall we illustrate the office of John the Baptist, and of the apostles
and evangelists of Christ," says Mr. Ewing, " by the work of providential
destruction, or that of murderers ?" We shall determine the meaning
of the word by such examples. Nothing more can be done by any
examples from antiquity. Nothing more do we want. I put it to every
candid reader, — I put it to Mr. Ewing himself, whether he would make
such an objection, if the examples were in his favour. Nay, we have
the answer virtually expressed in the authority which he gives to the
example of heathen and Jewish purifications. While he complains of
us for establishing the meaning of the word by documents that apply
the word to involuntary and fatal immersion, his mode of reasoning in
other places gives an authority to heathen models of purification that
they do not possess.
" These examples imply," says Mr. Ewing, " not a mere dipping and
up again, an immersion immediately followed by an emersion ; but a con-
tinued and permanent immersion, a remaining under water." Now, is
not this mode of reasoning perverse and unjust ? If some examples are
found, in which this word is applied to the dipping of things taken
immediately up, is not this sufficient to establish the propriety of its
application to the ordinance of baptism? Can it be necessary that all
the examples refer to things taken up? Will Mr. Ewing never learn
THE MODE OP BAPTISM. 103
that we are seeking, from these examples, not an authoritative model
for baptism, but the meaning of a word? If the disputed word, in
some instances, applies to things taken immediately up, and in others
to thino-s never taken up, a true critic, nay, common sense, will learn
that the word itself can designate neither taking up nor lying at the
bottom. One instance in which the word applies when the thing is
taken up after dipping, is as good as ten thousand.
But though some examples of the occurrence of this word imply a
permanent immersion or destruction, the word baptizo never expresses
this. Whether the thing is taken up, or is allowed to remain, is not
expressed by the word, but is implied by the circumstances. The word,
without one exception, signifies simply to dip.
In the following extract, the reasoning is more plausible. The author
seems to think that it is demonstration. However, when it is dissected,
it has no muscles. " Some may think," says Mr. Ewing, " it was not
necessary to use a word directly to express the emersion, because if
immersion really was enjoined, the emersion must be understood to follow
of course, from the necessity of the case. This is a perfectly natural
thought, but it cannot help the cause of anti-psedobaptists. According
to their views, baptism is a twofold symbol, representing two things of
distinct and equal importance. The immersion and the emersion are
both of them parts of this symbol ; the first representing the death, and
the second the resurrection of Christ. Now, if this be the case, the word
baptizo is a name for the one half only of their ordinance of baptism. It
entirely fails them as to the other half A word may have various
meanings, but it cannot have two of them at the same time. If, there-
fore, this word pops them down, it certainly cannot give any warrant, or
suggest any literal or figurative meaning, for their popping up again."
Now, how can we deliver ourselves out of this tremendous gulf? Nothing
can be more easy. Distinguish the things that are different, and place
every thing on its proper evidence, and all difficulty vanishes. The
word baptizo, even applied to baptism, expresses immersion only. Yet I
contend, that in baptism there is a two-fold symbol. How is this ? I
learn the meaning of the word from its use ; and I learn the meaning of
the ordinance, not from the word, but from the Scripture explanation of
the import of the ordinance. If there was nothing said in Scripture
about the import of baptism, I should learn nothing on the subject from
the word that designates it. I should learn as little of its being a
symbol of the death of Christ, as of his resurrection. I learn neither
from the word ; for it is possible that this word might have been used,
without teaching anything on the subject. I learn both from the Scrip-
ture explanations of Christ's institution.
But it may be said, if the word signifies immersion, it may be a
symbol of Christ's burial ; but it is not fitted to be such a symbol,
unless it also signifies to emerge. — Now, as far as depends on what is
actually expressed by the word, I grant that this is the case. But as in
the ordinance of baptism, the emersion is as necessary as the immersion,
there is nothing to prevent the institutor to make the emersion sym-
bolical as well as the immersion. If the institutor had not made it
104 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
symbolical, if it was not explained as pointing to Christ's resurrection
and ours, I would as soon anoint with oil and spittle, as deduce it from
the meaning of the word, even though the word had expressed both
immersion and emersion. The ordinance is as fit to represent emersion as
immersion, though the word baptism expresses the latter only. The
symbol consists in the thing, not in the name. There is no necessity that
the name should designate every thing contained in the ordinance. But
even granting that this is necessary, what would follow? Not that
baptism is not immersion, but that baptism is an emblem of burial only.
This would do Mr. Ewing little service. If we can once persuade him
to have himself popped into the water, it is not likely that he will be so
obstinate as to reject the half of the edification of the ordinance.
Mr. Ewing says, " Now if this be the case, the word baptizo is a name
for the one half only of their ordinance of baptism." But why should
the name of any ordinance designate every thing that the ordinance is
explained by the institutor as containing? This is not necessary ; nor
do Scripture ordinances at all recognise the authority of such a principle.
Is it not strange that Mr. Ewing should have forgotten one of the names
of the Lord's supper which is liable to the like objection ? It is called
the breaking of bread; yet it includes the drinking of wine. Such are
the effects of intemperate zeal., It requires, in one instance, what it
overlooks in another.
Section XIV. — On the Baptism of the Spirit. — The baptism of the
Spirit is a figurative expression, explicable on the principle of a reference
to immersion. This represents the abundance of the gifts and influences
of the Spirit of God in the enlightening and sanctification of believers.
That which is immersed in a liquid, is completely subjected to its influence
and imbued with its virtues ; so to be immersed in the Spirit, represents
the subjection of soul, body, and spirit, to his influence. The whole
man is sanctified. It is objected that the Holy Spirit is said to be poured
out, and therefore, to represent the pouring of the Spirit, baptism must be
by pouring. This is the grand resource of our opponents, and is more
specious to the illiterate than anything that has been said. A very
considerable part of the language of Scripture, in the representation of
the gifts of the Spirit, is founded on the figure of pouring ; and readers
who have no discrimination, or who are under the influence of bias, at
once conclude that this pouring is the baptism of the Spirit. This argu-
ment is drawn out in formidable array by Mr. Ewing ; and is relied on
with the utmost confidence by Dr. Wardlaw. But it is nothing but a
careless confusion of things entirely distinct, and is founded on an
egregious blunder, as the reader will perceive from the following
observations.
First, The word in its literal sense must guide all its figurative appli-
cations. The explanation of the figure must conform to the literal
meaning, but the literal meaning can never bend to the figurative. The
latter, indeed, may assist us in ascertaining the former ; but when the
former is ascertained, the latter must be explained in accordance with it.
But the literal meaning of this word is ascertained to be that of immersion.
THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 105
by a strength of evidence, and a multitude of examples, that cannot be
exceeded with respect to any word of the same frequency of occurrence.
This is a fixed point ; and in the examination of the reference in the
baptism of the Spirit, nothing can be admitted inconsistent with this.
The baptism of the Spirit must have a reference to immersion, because
baptism is immersion, and in its literal sense never signifies anything
else. When we come to the examination of this figure, or any other of
the same word, we must ground on this ascertained fact. As there is
not one instance in the literal use of the word, in which it must signify
pouring, or anything but dipping, the pretensions of pouring, as the
figurative baptism, do not deserve even a hearing. They cannot legiti-
mately even go before a jury, because true bills are not found. There
is no ground of trial, because there is nothing in the allegations that can
at all excite a doubt. Pouring cannot be the figurative baptism, because
baptism never literally denotes pouring.
Secondly, This opinion is founded on the egregious and blasphemous
error which teaches that God is material, and that there is a literal pouring
out of his Spirit, which may be represented by the pouring of water. Our
opponents understand the baptism of the Spirit to be a literal baptism, and
the pouring out of the Spirit to be a literal pouring out of Him who is
immaterial. But though there is a real communication of the Spirit, there
is no real or literal baptism of the Spirit. Let the reference in the baptism
of the Spirit be what it may, it cannot be a literal baptism, because God is
not material. We cannot be literally either dipped into God, or have him
poured on us. Pouring, then, in baptism, even if baptism were pouring,
could not represent the pouring of the Spirit, because the Spirit is not
literally poured. Baptism, whatever be the mode, cannot represent
either the manner of conveying the Spirit, or his operations in the soul.
These things cannot be represented by natural things. There is no
likeness to the Spirit, nor to the mode of his operations. It is blasphemy
to attempt a representation. It would be as easy to make a likeness of
God creating the world, and attempt to represent by a picture the Divine
operations in the formation of matter, as to represent by symbols the
manner of the communication of the Holy Spirit, and his operations on
the soul. If Christians were not infatuated with the desire of establishing
a favourite system, such gross conceptions of God could not have so long
escaped detection. This error is as dishonourable to God, as that of the
Anthropomorphites. It degrades the Godhead, by representing it as a
material substance.
When the Spirit is said to be poured, it is a figurative expression, to
which there is nothing resemblant in the manner of the Divine operations.
What, then, it may be asked, is the resemblance? Why is the Spirit
said to be poured, if the pouring of water does not resemble it ? The
foundation of the figure is the very reverse of what is supposed. The
Spirit is said to be poured out, not because there is any actual pouring,
which is represented by pouring out water in baptism, but from the
resemblance between the effects of the influences of the Spirit and those of
water. Between the Spirit itself and water there is no resemblance,
more than between an eye or a circle and the Divine nature. Nor is
14
106 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
there any resemblance between the mode of the operations of the Spirit,
and that of the influences of water. The Holy Spirit is said to be poured,
because his influences or effects are like those of water, and because he
is supposed to dwell above. The Holy Spirit is represented as poured
out, on the same principle on which God is said to have come down from
heaven, or to look down from heaven, or to have hands and arms. It
is in accommodation to our ways of thinking and speaking, not as
expressive of reality. The Holy Spirit is figured as water, not to repre-
sent any likeness in him to water, just as God is figured as a man. If
the Anthropomorphites blasphemously perverted this language to degrade
God, as supposing that it teaches that he has actually the human form,
it is no less a blasphemous perversion of the language in question, to
suppose that it imports a real pouring out of the Spirit. The Holy Spirit
is said also to be as deio. Does this imply that there is a likeness to
the falling of dew and the manner of the communication of the Holy
Ghost ? Our Lord represents the Spirit as a well, the waters of which
spring up, John iv. 14. Is there also a likeness in the manner of the
communication of the Spirit to water rising up out of the ground, as well
as to water poured out from above ? The Holy Spirit is also represented
as a river whose streams make glad the city of God. Is there also a
likeness between his operations and the running of water ? In all these
figures, the Spirit is represented in accommodation to natural things, and
natural things are not accommodated to it. The effects of the one resemble
the effects of the other ; but as to manner, there is no likeness. A particular
manner is given to the operations of the Spirit, to suit the manner of the
communication of the natural object. Therefore it is that the Spirit has as-
cribed to him all the various modes mentioned above. The Spirit, in every
figure, takes the manner of the resembling object, but the resembling object
never takes the manner of the Spirit, because nothing is known of his man-
ner. Of this there must not be — cannot be any likeness. If the manner of
the communication of the Spirit could be represented, one only of these
modes must be employed. If his manner ispouring, it cannot be like dew,
nor like rain, nor like a river, nor like a spring-well. But if the likeness
be merely between the effects of the Spirit and the effects of water, then the
Spirit may be represented as dew, or rain, or a river, or a spring-well,
just as the water is supposed to be applied. It is absurd to suppose an
ordinance to be appointed to represent the mode of the Spirit's com-
munication ; and as it is spoken of under all these modes, each of them
might claim an ordinance as well as pouring. Baptism might as well
represent water rising out of the earth, distilling in dew, running in a
stream, ox falling in rain, as pouring out of a cup. Each of these repre-
sents the blessings of the Spirit, by conforming the language about the
operations of the Spirit to a particular state of the water; none of them
represent the mode of these operations. The Holy Spirit is said to fall; why,
then, should not baptism represent falling? The Holy Spirit is repre-
sented as wind ; why, then, is there no blotoing in baptism ? The Holy
Spirit is represented by fire; why is there no fire used in this ordinance?
The gift of the Spirit was represented by the breathing of Jesus on the
apostles ; why is there no breathing in baptism ? The influences of the
THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 107
Spirit are represented by oil; why is not oil used in baptism? The
reception of the Holy Spirit is represented by drinking water ; why is
there no drinking in this ordinance 1
In like manner, curses are represented as poured out by God on his
enemies, or put into their hands as a cup to be drunk. Drinking is
equally an emblem of blessings and curses, because it is the one or the
other according to the qualities of the liquid. In the judgments of God
on the wicked, there is no likeness to the manner of the Divine opera-
tions. Why, then, should such a likeness be supposed when pouring
respects blessings 1 Baptism, then, cannot be either pouring or dipping,
for the sake of representing the manner of the conveyance of the Holy
Spirit ; for there is no such likeness. Pouring of the Spirit is a phrase
which is itself a figure, not a reality to be represented by a figure.
Baptism is a figure, not of the mode of any Divine operation, to which
there can be no likeness, but of the buried and resurrection of Christ,
which may be represented by natural things, because it respects the
objects of sense. In this reference it has a real application, a true like-
ness, and the most important use. Of the immersion of the Spirit, I
will say the same as of the pouring of the Spirit, that it cannot represent
the operations of the Spirit, or the mode of his conveyance. Believers
are said to be immersed into the Spirit, not because there is anything
like immersion in the manner of the reception of the Spirit, but from
the resemblance between an object immersed in a fluid, and the sancti-
fication of all the members of the body, and faculties of the soul. The
common way in which the pouring of the Spirit has been explained, is
inconsistent both with sound taste and with sound theology. It mistakes
the nature of figurative language, and converts the Godhead into matter.
But though the baptism of the Holy Spirit is a figurative baptism, to
which there cannot be a likeness in literal baptism ; yet as respects the
transaction on the day of Pentecost, there was a real baptism in the
emblems of the Spirit. The disciples were immersed into the Holy
Spirit by the abundance of his gifts ; but they were literally covered
with the appearance of wind and fire. The place where they met was
filled with the sound as of a rushing mighty wind, and cloven tongues as of
fire sat over them. They were then completely covered by the emblems
of the Spirit. Now, though there was no dipping of them, yet as they
were completely surrounded by the wind and fire, by the catachrestic
mode of speech which I before explained, they are said to be immersed.
This is a process exemplified with respect to innumerable words, and the
principle is quite obvious, as well as of daily application. The shepherd,
when his sheep are covered with snow in a glen, says that they are
buried in the snow. When a house falls upon the inhabitants, we say
that they are buried in its ruins. A general will threaten to bury the
inhabitants in the ruins of their city. The word bury with us, strictly
conveys the notion of digging into the earth, as well as of covering over
the dead. Yet here it is extended to a case in which the former does
not take place. Burial usually is performed by both operations, but
here the thing is performed by one ; and therefore the word that desig-
nates both, is elegantly assigned to that which serves the purpose of
108 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
both. Just so with respect to being covered with a fluid. Immersion
denotes that the thing immersed is put into the immersing substance ; yet
when the same effect is produced without the manner of the operation,
the usual name of the operation is catachrestically given to the result.
Virgil's expression, " Pocula sunt fontes liquidi," Georg. iii. p. 529, is an
exact parallel. " The liquid fountains are their cups," &x. Now, foun-
tains are not cups, more than the thing referred to is immersion, yet they
are called cups, because in the instance referred to they serve the pur-
pose of cups. This poet supplies innumerable examples of the operation
of the principle here illustrated.
Let it not be supposed that the principle which I have now illustrated
is at all akin to that unfounded fancy of Mr. Ewing, with respect to the
supposed exaggerated meaning of baptizo. Mr. Ewing in this gives two
meanings to a word, at variance with each other, and while he calls it
figurative, he makes it literal ; and agreeably to his doctrine, it must, in
the hyperbolical meaning, hold directly, and immediately, and independ-
ently, of the primary meaning. The principle which I have explained
is not of this paradoxical kind. I give but the one meaning to the word ;
and, even when there is no literal immersion, I maintain that the word
never drops its characteristic meaning. Indeed, the beauty of the figure
is that the word suggests its own peculiar meaning, even when it does
not literally apply. It professedly calls a thing by a name, which lite-
rally does not in all respects belong to it, to gratify the imagination.
Why does Virgil call fountains by the name of cups ? Not because they
were really cups, or because cup signifies fountain literally, but because
the human mind by its constitution is delighted in certain circumstances
by viewing a thing as being what it is not, but which in some respects
it resembles. The process for which I contend, I can vindicate by the
soundest philosophy, — I can trace to its origin in the human mind, —
I can illustrate by parallels without number. Mr. Ewing has not
attempted to illustrate his figure, nor is it in his power to show its
foundation in the human mind, or to sanction it by corresponding
examples.
Mr. Booth, with a truly critical judgment and correct taste, illustrates
this mode of speech by alluding to the electrical bath, "so called," says
the writer whom he quotes, " because it surrounds the patient with an
atmosphere of electrical fluid, in which he is plunged." Here the writer
to whom he refers, scruples not to say that the patient is plunged into
the fluid which is brought around him. Indeed, the very term electrical
bath is an exemplification of the operation of the same principle. Bath
properly refers to a vessel of water in which persons are bathed : but by
a catachresis, this term is given to a vessel filled with a fluid, which fluid
is not for the purpose of bathing.
Thirdly, There is another grand fallacy in this argument. It con-
founds things that are different. Water is poured out into a vessel in order
to have things put into it. But the pouring out of the water, and the
application of the water so poured out, are different things. Water is
poured into a bath in order to immerse the feet or the body, but the
immersion is not the pouring. Now, our opponents confound these two
THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 109
things. Because the Spirit is said to be poured out in order to the
baptism of the Spirit, they groundlessly conclude that the pouring is the
baptism. A foreigner might as well contend that, when it is said in the
English language, " Water was poured into a bath, and they immersed
themselves," it is implied that pouring and immersing are the same thing.
'Then taking the resplendent vase
Allotted always to that use, she first
Infused cold water largely, then the warm.
She, then, approaching, ministered the bath
To her own king." — Cowper, Odys. xix.
The pouring out of the Spirit is as different a figure from the baptism
of the Spirit, as the infusion of the water into the bath is different from
the application of the water to the object in the bath.
Now, let us apply these observations to Mr. Ewing's reasoning. Dis-
section is not a pleasant work, either to the operator or the spectators ;
but it is impossible to make an anatomist without it. General observa-
tions must be applied to the subject in detail, that all may thoroughly
understand their application, and perceive their justness. It is tedious,
but the business cannot be effectually done without the knife.
Speaking of water, air, and fire, Mr. Ewing says. " which are all
considered in Scripture as elements of baptism." Air and fire were
elements of the baptism that took place on the day of Pentecost, but
they are not elements in the standing ordinance of Christ. In the bap-
tism of the day of Pentecost there was no water at all. They who were
baptized on that day in wind and fire, had been baptized before. This
was not the ordinance of Christian baptism, nor an ordinance at all.
Christ himself was the administrator, and it is called baptism only in an
allusive sense. If it was baptism as an ordinance, it would prove, that
after the baptism of water, there ought to be another baptism into wind
and fire.
" And in this connexion," continues Mr. Ewing, " these elements are
uniformly represented as poured, inspired, and made to fall from above"
Very true, but is this pouring, inspiring , falling from above, called bap-
tism 1 Never — never.
Mr. Ewing asserts, that these emblems of the work of the Spirit are
an allusion to the creation of man. But how does he find the fire in
that work? Why, was there not " the fire of life ?" But the fire of
life is no element. This is only a figurative expression. It is mere
fanaticism to take such mysteries out of the Scriptures. Is it not strange
that Mr. Ewing will allow himself to indulge so wild a fancy in deriving
emblematical instruction from his own creations, and that he so obsti-
nately refuses to take that edification from the import of baptism, which
is obviously contained in the apostolical explanations of the ordinance ?
He says that baptism " consists in a representation of all the elements
employed in our first creation." I have remarked that there was no fire
employed in our first creation ; and Christian baptism has no represen-
tation either of fire or air. Nor has the water of baptism any allusion
to the water that moistened the clay in the creation of man. These
110 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
mysteries are akin to those that the Romish church so piously finds in
the oil and spittle used in baptism.
He says that the promise of the baptism with the Holy Spirit and with
fire " was given to all the disciples." Then the promise has not been
fulfilled. Wind and fire are not used in the baptism of all disciples.
This baptism was peculiar to the day of Pentecost. This promise can-
not be supposed as literally applying to all disciples. He says, " it
belongs to them, both as it regards gracious influence, and as it regards
miraculous inspiration." But the baptism of the day of Pentecost could
not respect the spiritual birth, else there would be two baptisms repre-
senting the same thing. The persons baptized on the day of Pentecost
were previously baptized into water as being born again. Jt could not
respect their progressive sanctification, else it might be repeated as often
as the Lord's supper, and every disciple would equally need the wind
and fire literally. Nor have all disciples the promise of miraculous gifts.
Miraculous inspiration he understands as applying to all believers only
in the sense of their being " built on the foundation of the apostles and
prophets ; that is, their faith is founded on the authority and energy of
that Spirit by which the apostles and prophets were inspired." What
an abuse of words is this ! A man is miraculously inspired, because he
believes the doctrine of an inspired person ! ! !
Mr. Ewing derives another argument for pouring, from the expression,
u born from above," John iii. But from above, merely designates that
God is the author of this birth, without respect to any emblem appointed
to represent it, though baptism is, in ver. 5, referred to as its emblem.
Bom from above, is perfectly synonymous with born of God.
As little can be built on the emblem, John xx. 22. The breathing on
the disciples was not a baptism, nor is it called a baptism.
Mr. Ewing says, that " the mode of the baptism, Acts i. 5, is explained
ver. 8." But ver. 8 says nothing of the mode of that baptism : " But
ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you."
The coming is not the baptism. The influence of the Spirit when come,
not the coming of the Spirit, is the baptism.
The author observes, with respect to Acts ii. 2, " that • the sound' of
the wind was heard descending from heaven, and filling the house."
Yes — but the descending is not the baptism. The wind descended to fill
the house, that when the house was filled with the wind, the disciples
might be baptized in it. Their baptism consisted in being totally
surrounded with the wind, not in the manner in which the wind came.
The water must be brought from the river or fountain, to fill the vessel
for immersion. Does this say that the conveyance of the water is bap-
tism?
Mr. Ewing says, that " distributed flames of fire appeared like
tongues, and sat down upon every one of them." Though this transla-
tion is warranted by the learned Bishop Pearce, it is by no means justi-
fiable. The common version is perfectly exact. It is not fire cloven,
or distributed into tongues, but cloven tongues. There were not only
many tongues, to denote many languages; but the tongues were cloven,
to denote that the same individual could speak different languages. The
THE MODE OF BAPTISM. Ill
fire sat down upon each of them. The baptism did not consist, as Mr.
Ewing supposes, in the sitting down, or the mode of the coming of the
flame, but in their being under it. They were surrounded by the wind,
and covered by the fire above. They were therefore buried in wind and
fire.
It is quite obvious, indeed, that even the mode in which the house is
said to have been filled with the wind on the day of Pentecost, is no
more pouring than it is dipping. The wind is not said to be poured
into the house, but to come rushing with a mighty noise ; or the sound
that filled the house, was like the sound of a rushing mighty wind. If
literal baptism has any allusion to this, the mode ought to be that of a
rushing wind. If the manner of the coming of the emblem is the bap-
tism, then baptism is neither pouring nor immersion, but rushing.
But even if the Pentecost baptism were, for argument sake, allowed
to be pouring, this would not relieve Mr. Ewing. The whole house
was filled with the sound of the wind — the emblem of the Spirit. This
was not popping a^ittle water with the hand on the turned up face.
When Mr. Ewing pfeurs water on the baptized person, till the latter is
covered completely with it, he will give as much trouble as if he were
to immerse at once. In whatever way the water in baptism is to be
applied, this passage teaches us that the baptized person must be totally
covered.
Speaking of our Lord's baptism, Mr. Ewing asserts, " the meaning of
the ordinance, and the very mode of its administration, confirmed the
truth that the Holy Spirit was about to be given." But how did the
meaning and mode of Christ's baptism confirm this truth? Does not
this take for granted that Mr. Ewing' s meaning of the mode and import
of this ordinance is just? If the very thing in debate is granted to Mr.
Ewing, no doubt he will prove it. He refers to John vii. 39, and Acts
xix. 2, 3. But neither of these passages asserts what he teaches. He
speaks also of the influences of the Holy Spirit, " visibly descending from
on high, and abiding upon him." The influence of the Holy Spirit did
not visibly descend. It was the emblem of the spirit that descended
visibly. The appearance of a dove descended visibly and abode upon him.
But was this Christ's baptism ? The baptism was over before the em-
blem descended. Besides, the descending of the Spirit could not be the
baptism of the Spirit. Jesus is not here said to be baptized with the
Spirit. This baptism was literal baptism. This extraordinary commu-
nication might indeed have been called a baptism, just as in the case of
the disciples, but it is not so called here ; and if it were so called, it
would not be the descent of the Spirit, that is the baptism, but the com-
munication of it after its descent. If the baptism consisted in the descent,
the baptism was over when the dove reached Jesus. Is it possible that
there is any one who has so little of the powers of discrimination, as not
to be able to distinguish between bringing water from a fountain, and
the use of that water when it is brought — between pouring water into a
bath, and bathing in the bath ? Yet every one who concludes from the
pouring of the Spirit, that baptism must be pouring, either wants this
discrimination, or is unwilling to use it.
112 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
Another passage alleged by Mr. Ewing on this subject, is Psal. xlv. 2,
" Grace is poured into thy lips," &-c. What has this to do with baptism?
The Spirit, indeed, is here said to be poured, but did any man ever
deny this? But let it never be forgotten, that such language does not
imply the blasphemous notion, that there is any literal pouring in the
giving of the Spirit, or that an ordinance is appointed to represent this
pouring. It is quite useless, then, to refer to each of the passages which
Mr. Ewing alleges to prove a descent. The descent is not the baptism,
and cannot represent any real movement in the Spirit. The same an-
swer will serve for all. But Mr. Ewing says, that " John supposed Jesus
to receive the symbol of the Holy Spirit's descent, and presently he was
seen, by miracle, to receive the reality." And is it possible that Mr.
Ewing can say, that what was seen after the baptism of Christ was the
reality ! ! ! The appearance of a dove seen to light on the head of Christ,
the reality of the communication of the Spirit!!! Surely, surely, the
dove itself was but the emblem, not the reality represented by an emblem
of baptism.
But was the dovepozircd out of heaven ? Is not^he Spirit said to de-
scend from heaven, in conformity to the dove, the emblem? This shows
that the descent of the Spirit is spoken of in language always suited to
the emblem under which he is represented. When water is the emblem,
his descent is spoken of as pouring, or as falling like dew, die. When
the dove is the emblem, the descent is spoken of, not as pouring, but as
the descent of a bird. Such varied language is suited to the various
emblems, and not to any reality in the manner of the communication
of the Spirit. Let any Christian attend to this observation, and he will
be ashamed of the childish, or rather heathenish explanation of this lan-
guage, that implies that the Godhead is matter. Pouring is most fre-
quently used for the sending of the gifts of the Spirit ; but I have shown
that the same thing is spoken of with reference to a fountain springing
up — a running stream, — the rain that is said to fall, — or the dew that
distils. And here the same thing is exhibited as the descent of a bird,
in conformity to the dove, which is the emblem employed. Let us hear
no more, then, of baptism as pouring, in order to represent the pouring
of the Spirit. We may as well make baptism a flying, to represent the
descent of the dove ; or a blowing and a blazing, to represent the wind
and fire on the day of Pentecost ; or a stream, to represent the river that
supplies the city of God ; or a jet, to represent the springing of a foun-
tain ; or a distillation, to represent the gentle falling of the dew ; or a
shower-bath, to represent the falling of the rain.
But if we are so obstinate as to resist the passages which Mr. Ewing
has alleged above, the most incredulous will doubtless surrender to the
" view expressly given (Acts ii. 16 — 21, 33, 38, 39,) of baptism with
water, in consequence of the performance of the promise of baptism
with the Spirit." " I will pour out of my Spirit," &c. " He hath
poured out this, which ye now see and hear." " For as yet he was
fallen upon none of them." " The Holy Ghost fell upon them all."
The reply I have given will equally apply to this. The pouring is
not the baptism, though the Spirit was poured out, that they might
THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 113
be baptized in it. The descent and the pouring are over, before the
baptism takes place. But it may be alleged, Is it not said (Acts xi.
15, 16, 17,) that the Spirit's falling on them brought to remembrance
the promise of the baptism of the Spirit ? Does not this import that the
baptism of the Spirit is the same thing with the falling of the Spirit ? —
It implies, indeed, that the baptism of the Spirit fulfilled the promise ;
but it does not imply that the baptism was the falling. The falling
preceded the baptism. Rain falls to moisten the earth. The moistening
of the earth is not the falling of the rain ; the falling is a previous pro-
cess. Suppose that in a drought, a man skilled in the signs of the
weather, should foretel that on to-morrow the earth tvill be moistened with
looter, should we not consider the prophecy fulfilled when we saw rain
falling ? Yet falling is not expressed by the word moistening. Just so
with the pouring and the baptism of the Spirit. Let my opponents bring
to the subject a small portion of discrimination, and they will instantly
discern that the falling of the Spirit on the disciples, fulfilled the pro-
mise of the baptism of the Spirit, though falling and baptism are two
very different things. Is not falling itself different from pouring ? They
are modes as different as pouring and dipping. But every thing will
serve Mr. Ewing that pops down. Yet strange, though he argues with
equal confidence from every mode of descent, he comes at last to the
confident conclusion, that no mode of descent will answer, but that of
pouring. Though falling and flying will serve him in opposing immer-
sion, yet he unceremoniously dismisses them ail, when through their
means he has gained the victory. Even decent and innocent sprinkling,
that has held joint and unquestioned possession with its sister pour for
so long a period, he turns out of doors with every mark of indignity.
But with respect to the falling of the Spirit on the disciples in the
house of Cornelius, how did Peter and the rest perceive the descent?
Was there anything visible 1 No ; they knew that the Holy Spirit fell
on them, because they saw the effect of his influences. Acts x. 46.
The influences, then, of the Spirit, and not the falling, were the baptism
of the Spirit.
Mr. Ewing concludes with all the confidence of demonstration : " Is
it credible," says he, " that a word which signifies the motion of body
upon body, in any direction, should, when applied to represent both the
figure and the reality of a descent from above, be meant to be under-
stood of motion in an opposite direction ?" &c. Stop a little, Mr. Ewing.
You have said that the disputed word signifies the motion of body upon
body, but you have not proved this. Nor is this word employed to
represent the descent from above in any instance which you have brought
forward. Why does Mr. Ewing substisute the word baptize here for the
word descend? In his premises, the words are pour, descend, fall, &c; in
his conclusion, they become baptize. This is a trick in sleight of hand
which we will not admit. It is utterly unlawful to reason from words
that denote descent, and then draw the conclusion from baptizo. So far
from its being fact that baptizo, in the passages referred to, is applied to
represent both the figure and the reality of a descent, the words that are
applied for this purpose do not represent the baptism, but a process
15
114 THE MODE OP BAPTISM.
previous to the baptism. Whether the water, or the wind, or the fire,
descends from above, or ascends from below, is nothing to the baptism.
The baptism is the same, in whatever manner the baptizing substance is
conveyed to the place of baptizing.
The authority of Milton is utterly valueless on this subject. I notice
it merely to show the boldness and the rashness of Mr. Ewing's criticism.
" Because Milton speaks of baptism as dispensed in a river," says Mr.
Ewing, " it has been supposed that he favoured the mode of immersion ;
but I am inclined to think this is a mistake. He says, indeed, of our
Saviour's commission to his disciples,
" ' To them shall leave in charge
To teach all nations what of him they learned,
And his salvation ; them who shall believe
Baptizing in the profluent stream, the sign
Of washing them from guilt of sin to life
Pure; and in mind prepared, if so befall,
For death, like that which the Redeemer died.' "
Well, reader, what do you think of this? What was Milton's view
of the mode of baptism ? If our Saviour commanded them to baptize
disciples in the profluent stream, must not baptism be immersion ? What
hardihood must that man possess, who will dare to criticise in this
manner ! But, says Mr. Ewing, " According to this account, baptism is
the sign of, not immersing, but washing in a river." What egregious
trifling ! Baptism is not the sign of immersing ! That is, immersing is
not the sign of immersing. Very true ; for how could a thing be the
sign of itself? Well, of what is baptism a sign, according to Milton ? —
Of washing in a river ! So then Milton makes baptism a sign of washing
in a river ! Then the sign and the thing signified are the same. Wash-
ing in a river is the sign of washing in a river ! Alas, poor Milton !
here thou hast a fool's cap. Illustrious bard! perhaps thou wast a
heretic, but certainly thou wast not a fool. Immersion in a river, thou
hast said, is the sign of washing from guilt. O that thou hadst known
the reality as well as thou didst know the figure ! Hadst thou known
the Saviour as well as thou hast known the mode of this his ordinance,
thou wouldst have been great indeed !
Speaking of the baptism of the Spirit, Milton indeed uses the phrase
"on all baptized." But this may be accounted for by his using the
word baptize as it is generally used in English. Using the word in its
most common acceptation, I would not scruple to say, baptized with the
Spirit, when there was no need for accuracy of distinction. Milton, also,
from not closely considering the phraseology, might fall into the vulgar
error, that the baptism of the Spirit was pouring, because the Spirit is
said to be poured out, though water baptism was by immersion. This
way of explaining the apparent inconsistency, I believe, is not uncom-
mon. I hope I have made it unnecessary to have recourse to this
resource.
Mr. Ewing quotes a passage from which it has been concluded that
Milton was opposed to infant baptism, but from which Mr. Ewing him-
self concludes that the poet was a friend both to pouring and the baptism
THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 115
of infants. I need not quote the whole passage ; the marrow of it is
found in the expression, " When ye had laid the purifying element upon
his forehead." Now, both this and the whole passage may agree with
either of the opinions, and consequently can neither prove nor refute
either. Mr. Ewing is well founded in supposing that the disparagement
may not respect the sprinkling ; but he has no authority to conclude
that Milton approved either of sprinkling as the mode, or of infants as
the subjects of baptism, because he calls the water laid on the foreheads
of infants, a purifying element. Water is a purifying element, even when
applied in the holy water of the Church of Rome. The nature of the
water is the same, whether it is used superstitiously, or according to the
appointment of God. But Milton might have gone much farther, with-
out giving ground for Mr. Ewing's inference. Many protestants would
speak of the baptism of the Church of Rome, with all its trumpery, as
true baptism. I am not sure that Mr. Ewing himself would re-baptize
a convert from popery. I refer to this note with respect to Milton, —
not from any desire to have him on my side, but to manifest the utter
unreasonableness of Mr. Ewing's criticism. No evidence could with-
stand the torture of such an inquisitor. I doubt not but Mr. Ewing
could make Milton as orthodox on the subject of the Trinity as on bap-
tism, if he would as zealously set about the work.
We have a delicious morsel of criticism in Mr. Ewing's explanation
of the figurative baptism that was fulfilled in the sufferings of Christ.
Mr. Ewing is at no loss to find edification in his mode of this ordinance.
He does not need the apostles as commissaries to find provision for the
house of God. He gives us much edification in his explanation of this
ordinance, not to be found in the Scriptures. " We are led to conceive
of baptism," says Mr. Ewing, " as the pouring out of water from a cup
on the turned up face of the baptized ; and whether he be adult or in
infancy, it may thus not only wet the surface as a figure of washing, but
be drunk into the mouth, as the emblem of a principle of new life, and
of continual support and refreshment, — of a source of spiritual and hea-
venly consolation, and of a willingness given, or to be given, to the
baptized, to receive whatever may be assigned them as their portion."
Here surely is a discovery. Here is edification unknown to all former
ages. Had the ancients perceived this in the import of sprinkling or
pouring, there would have been no need of the honey and milk at baptism.
Mr. Ewing can obtain the same thing from the manner of putting the
water on the face. Mr. Ewing considers the drinking of part of the watei
poured on the turned up face, as an emblem. If so, then this drinking
is essential to true baptism ; and if any baptized person happen not to
receive a part of the water into the mouth, he is not properly baptized.
He wants something that belongs to the ordinance. If this is the case,
a very great number are not truly baptized. Nay, it is not only essential
to receive some of the baptismal water into the mouth, but it is necessary
to drink it. If the child by suffocation makes an involuntary effort to
throw out the water, it is unbaptized. I think the probability is, that
not one of a thousand actually drink any part of the water. I am con-
vinced also, that very many who baptize by pouring water on the face,
116 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
so far from being aware of the virtue of drinking a part of the element,
endeavour to avoid giving pain to the child by pouring the water into
the mouth. If this is a part of the emblem of baptism, the nature of the
ordinance is yet unknown to the great body of those who practise infant
baptism, and the bidk of those called Christians are unbaptized.
But this drinking is not only an emblem, it is an emblem pregnant
with mysteries. An emblem of a principle of new life — of continual
support and refreshment — of a source of spiritual and heavenly consola-
tion— of a willingness given — ay, and of a willingness to be given, &c.
What a striking emblem of this willingness, is a child screaming and
coughing to eject the water that falls into its mouth ! With what a keen
appetite does its thirsty soul drink down this agreeable beverage ! What
pity that the apostles were ignorant of all these mysteries in baptism !
What pity that Mr. Ewing's book was not written till the nineteenth
century ! — Ah, shame ! Can it be possible that the minister of an Inde-
pendent church, should indulge his fancy in finding mysteries in an
ordinance of Christ, which are nowhere explained by the apostles as
included in it ? Where is the passage of Scripture that explains bap-
tism as containing these mysteries? Where is this drinking found?
The very foundation of these mysteries is not once mentioned in the
word of God. Where is the turned up face ? For anything that the
Scriptures contain on the subject, it might as well be the turned up foot.
Another might find mysteries in the foot, as well as Mr. Ewing has
found them in the face.
Mr. Ewing, however, says, " We are led to this conception of baptism,
by various passages of Scripture which it will be found to explain." But to
justify such an explanation, it is not enough that it will illustrate the vari-
ous passages of Scripture. Some passage of Scripture must explain the
ordinance in this sense. There is no rite of superstition that might not,
by a wild imagination, be alleged to illustrate some passage of Scripture.
We are not yet at the end of the mysteries in the mode of baptism.
" The cup," says Mr. Ewing, " which I refer to, is the cup of nature,
that is, the hollow of the human hand." Though the word of God says
nothing at all about the hand in the administration of this ordinance,
Mr. Ewing finds it under the designation of a cup. He gives us the full
process in the following words : " From this cup, the baptizer so pours
it out on the baptized, that it shall run down his face, as the ointment
did from the head of Aaron, and even to the skirts, rather to the upper
border or collar of his garment. Psa. cxxxiii. 2." Not only, then, must
some of the water be received into the mouth, some of it must also run
down on the garments. What nice adjustment is necessary in the posi-
tion of the person to be baptized, that all these mysteries may be accom-
plished ? Would it not be an improvement if a little oil was added to
the ceremony?
Mr. Ewing next proceeds to caution against taking offence at the
simplicity of oriental manners, and to justify, by examples, this drinking
out of the cup of nature. But all this is unnecessary. Could Mr. Ewing
show from Scripture that we are to drink water out of the hollow of the
baptizer's hand, we would submit without a murmur. He himself
THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 117
might have a lesson from his own admonition. It is very applicable to
his objection to immersion. But because it was customary to drink out
of the hollow of the hand, does it follow that baptism must be such a
drinking ? There is no connexion between the premises and the con-
clusion.
Let us not, however, be too rash in asserting that Mr. Ewing has no
Scripture for his mysteries. He alleges several passages. Was ever
the Church of Rome at a loss for Scripture allusions to countenance
its rites and mysteries? In no instance is it less successful than Mr.
Ewing. He alleges, 1 Cor. xii. 13, " baptized into one body ;" and
" made to drink into one Spirit." But does this imply that baptizing
and drinking are the same emblem ? Does it imply that these two
figures are taken from a process in baptism? What reason is there to
suppose that the last respects that ordinance ? The two figures are totally
unconnected, — as unconnected as any two figures that in conjunction are
applied to the same object. That the last has a reference to drinking in
baptism, is as arbitrary a conceit as anything in the mysteries of popery.
Mr. Ewing adds, " There is perhaps a more intimate connexion
between a ' cup' and a ' baptism,' as belonging to one allusion, than
some readers of Scripture have as yet remarked, Matt. xx. 22," &c.
These figures both respect one object, but they have not, as Mr. Ewing
asserts, one allusion. They are figures as independent and as distinct,
as if one of them was found in Genesis, and the other in Revelation.
One of them represents the sufferings of Christ as a cup of bitterness or
poison, which he must drink ; the other represents the same sufferings
as an immersion in water. When the Psalmist says, " the Lord God is
a sun and shield" is there one allusion in the two figures? Both the
figures represent the same object, but they have a separate and altogether
independent allusion. The sun is one emblem, a shield is another. In
like manner, when the Psalmist says, " we went through fire and through
water," have the fire and the ivater one allusion? This criticism is
founded on a total misconception of the nature of figurative language.
Again, if the drinking of the cup and the baptism have one allusion,
that is, if they both allude to the ordinance of baptism, why are both ex-
pressions used ? Is not this the same as to say, Are you able to suffer as
1 suffer, and to be baptized with my baptism ? It gives not two illustra-
tions of the same thing, but merely two names. If drinking the cup is
baptism, then there are not two figures. We might as well say, the son
of Philip king of Macedon, and Alexander the Great. But if the drinking
of the cup and the baptism, conjointly, represent the same object, each
exhibiting a part, then it follows that the baptism is not baptism, but is
part of baptism, which is completed by the drinking. Besides, this view
places the last part of the figure first ; the drinking is before the pouring
out of the cup.
It may be remarked, also, that if sufferings are represented as the
drinking of a cup, in allusion to the cup of nature in baptism, then the
ordinance of baptism represents sufferings as well as blessings. The
drinking in baptism represents not only the reception of the Spirit, but
the suffering of afflictions. The figure of drinking a cup, is equally
118 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
calculated to represent either. But both cannot be contained in the
same cup. Afflictions might be represented by the drinking of a cup,
but not by the cup of Christian baptism, which represents the blessings
of the Gospel.
The expression, " I have a baptism to be baptized with ; and how am
I straitened till it be finished," Luke xii. 50, Mr. Ewing explains thus :
" I have a cup to drink of, and how am I straitened until it be finished."
But it is utterly without authority to say, that baptism is a cup. This
is a new meaning given to the word, with as little foundation as to say
that baptism is a swo?'d. Mr. Ewing refers to Matt. xxvi. 39, for sup-
port to this explanation. But this gives him not a shadow of counte-
nance. The cup there spoken of, refers indeed to the sufferings of Christ,
but the cup is not called a baptism. These figures respect the same
thing, but they do not respect the same likeness. What a wild idea, to
suppose that two independent metaphors cannot in conjunction illustrate
the same object ! A hero is a lion, is a tower, is a rock, is a thousand
things ; without supposing any identity or relation between the lion, and
the tower, and the rock, and the thousand things that represent him.
It is really sickening to dissect such criticism. Proofs and illustrations
are brought forward and exhibited with an importance that intimates
them quite decisive, which have not the most distant bearing on the
point in hand. The passages in which the sufferings of Christ are
spoken of, under the figure of dri?iking a cup, are all mustered and
paraded, as if the fact that this phrase refers to the same thing with the
figurative baptism of Christ, is proof that they are the same figure, or
must both refer to baptism. What should we think of the critic who
should argue that the phrase sun and shield, in the eighty-fourth Psalm,
is one allusion, because they both refer to God? This is the very
crticism of Mr. Ewing.
Mr. Ewing very justly observes, that in the Old Testament, the
punishment of the wicked by God is represented by their being com-
pelled to drink a cup. But, surely, there can be nothing corresponding
to this in baptism. We are not compelled to drink a cup of poison,
when we drink of the influences of the Holy Spirit.
" This simplicity, and this littleness of the sign," says Mr. Ewing,
" mark its resemblance to all the other symbolical ordinances of God,
and distinguish it from those clumsy and unseemly additions, which a
superstitious dependence on means, or rather on the show of wisdom in
will-worship, has rendered men so prone to adopt." If any man adopts
immersion from a dependence on means, or as an inventon of will-
worship, I will give him up to Mr. Ewing's most indignant reprobation.
It is the commandment of God I am searching after ; and if I find this,
I will never use any reasoning to make the sign either less or greater
than it is. " I have as little faith," continues Mr. Ewing, " in the com-
promise of copious pouring, as in the enormity of immersion baptism."
But according to some of the precedents alleged by the author himself,
he is not at liberty to have little faith in copious pouring. Even
granting that the Pentecost baptism was pouring, it was an immensely,
it was an enormously copious pouring. It was a pouring that filled the
THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 119
whole house. It is Mr. Ewing's business to reconcile this precedent
with his popping. But Mr. Ewing gives us reasons — Scripture reasons,
for his having little faith in copious pouring. " A small quantity of
blood sprinkled once a year," says he, " by the high priest, with one of
his fingers, on a little gold-plated seat, was, for ages, the sign to Israel,
of the acceptance in heaven of the sacrifice of Christ for the whole
church." Very true, because a small quantity was sufficient to perfect
the figure. A small quantity of water cannot suffice for the exhibition
of the likeness of a burial and resurrection, which are declared by God
to be the import of baptism. Had God commanded to sprinkle with a
few drops of water, or to pour a little water on the turned up face, for
a purpose that such an emblem is calculated to serve, it would have
been impious to change this into another ordinance to represent a burial
and resurrection. A little blood served the priest for sprinkling ; but a
little water did not serve him for his bathing. A " little gold-plated
seat" served to receive the sprinkling of the blood ; but a little water
did not serve to fill the brazen sea. "A small morsel of bread, and a
sip of wine," &c. No doubt of it; but this small quantity is as fit to
represent the thing figured, as a baker's shop and a wine cellar would
be. " The handful of water," says Mr. Ewing, " on the face of the
polluted sinner, confirms the good news of the washing of regeneration,"
&c. If loashing only were intended to be represented, this might be
true : but the Spirit of inspiration has declared, that this ordinance re-
presents the burial and resurrection of Christ, and our fellowship with
him in these, by faith in which we are washed. Had not God instituted
immersion, and explained its meaning, man could not do either. I
disclaim all ordinances of will-worship, and all human explanations of
Scripture ordinances. God only can institute. God only can interpret.
If Mr. Ewing claims the right of inventing mysteries in the signification
of baptism, I believe he will not find a fellow among those on the other
side of the question.
The passage of the children of Israel through the Red Sea is figura-
tively called a baptism, from its external resemblance to that ordinance,
and from being appointed to serve a like purpose, as well as to figure
the same thing. " Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be
ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed
through the sea; and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in
the sea," 1 Cor. x. 1. Here they are said to have been baptized. There
can be no doubt, therefore, that there is in their passage through the
sea, something that resembles both the external form, and the purpose
of Christian baptism. It was a real immersion — the sea stood on each
side, and the cloud covered them. But it was not a literal immersion in
water, in the same way as Christian baptism. It is, therefore, figuratively
called by the name of the Christian ordinance, because of external
similarity, and because of serving the like purpose, as well as figuring
the same event. The going down of the Israelites into the sea, their
being covered by the cloud, and their issuing out on the other side, re-
sembled the baptism of believers, served a like purpose as attesting
their faith in Moses as a temporal saviour, and figured the burial and
120 THE MODE OP BAPTISM.
resurrection of Christ and Christians, as well as Christian baptism. If
Christian baptism is a representation of burial and resurrection, — and
if the passage of the Israelites is called a baptism, we are warranted in
supposing that both have the same figurative meaning. It has been
argued by some, that the Israelites were baptized by the rain from the
cloud, and the spray from the sea. But this is quite arbitrary ; for there
is nothing said about rain from the cloud, or spray from the sea. It is
not in evidence that any such things existed. On the contrary, as they
would have been an annoyance, there is reason to believe that they
did not exist. The baptism of the Israelites in ver. 2, is evidently re-
ferred to their having been under the cloud, and having passed through
the sea, as stated in the first verse.
Dr. Wardlaw asks in astonishment, "Are our brethren not sensible of
the straining that is necessary to make out immersion baptism here?"
Not in the least sensible of any straining, I can assure Dr. Wardlaw.
But we do not strain to make out a literal baptism, as respects an ordi-
nance to be performed as an appointment of God. Surely there is no
straining, to see in this fact something that may darkly shadow a burial.
There is no straining to find in it something corresponding to Christian
baptism, though in all things it does not identify with it. However ri-
diculous this conceit may appear to Dr. Wardlaw, it is the very thing as-
serted by the Holy Ghost. The Israelites, by being under the cloud, and
passing through the sea, were baptized into Moses. By venturing to
enter into the sea, they professed and exhibited full confidence in Moses
as sent of God to lead them out of Egypt to Canaan.
"A dry baptism ! " exclaims Dr. Wardlaw. Be patient, Dr. Wardlaw :
was not the Pentecost baptism a dry baptism? Christian baptism is not
a dry baptism ; but the baptism of Pentecost, and of the Israelites in the
Red Sea, were dry baptisms. Immersion does not necessarily imply
wetting : immersion in water implies this. " Would our brethren," says
Dr. Wardlaw, " consider a man duly baptized by his being placed be-
tween two cisterns of water, with a third over his head ? " Certainly not.
Nothing is Christian baptism, but the immersion of a believer in water,
in obedience to the command of Jesus. Every thing that can be called
immersion is not baptism as an ordinance of Christ. Strange, indeed,
that Dr. Wardlaw should suppose that every thing is Christian baptism,
which can be denominated an immersion. To be spotted with blood is
a sprinkling: would Dr. Wardlaw consider this true Christian baptism ?
In an ordinance of Christ there is something more than mode. Would
Dr. Wardlaw consider a man duly baptized, when he is sprinkled with
rain, or wet with dew ? The Spirit of God calls the passage through the
Red Sea a baptism ; a likeness then it must have to the Christian ordi-
nance of baptism, to which there is an undoubted reference. Surely
it requires less straining to find this likeness from the facts stated, than
from fancies supposed. The passage through the sea as much resem-
bles baptism, as the manna does the bread in the Lord's supper. They
are figures of the same thing, and therefore, though different, are simi-
lar.
THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 121
Section XV. — Having examined the testimony of the figurative appli-
cations of the word baptizo, I shall now try what light can be obtained
from its syntax, and the circumstances in which it is found. Matt. iii. 11 :
" I baptize you in water." It may be surprising that, after ail that
has been said on the subject, 1 should still lay any stress on the prepo-
sition en, in. I may be asked, Do you deny that it may be translated
icith ? I do not deny this, yet I am still disposed to lay stress on it. A
word may be used variously, yet be in each of its applications capable
of being definitely ascertained. Were not this the case, language would
be incapable of conveying definite meaning. To ascertain its meaning
here, I shall submit the following observations : 1. In is its primary
and most usual signification. Even in the instances in which it is
translated otherwise, it may generally be reduced to its primary mean-
ing, although it is more usual with our idiom to employ other prepo-
sitions. There are instances, indeed, in which we cannot trace the
primary idea. This, however, is nothing but what happens with our
own preposition in, and with all prepositions. If the Greeks say, en
cheiri ischura, (in a strong hand,) we say, they went out in arms. En is
so obviously the parent of in, that Mr. Ewing says, that '; it can hardly
be called a translation." He considers it merely a change of alphabet.
It may be true, that this was the case in the formation of the derived
word, but it certainly is a translation in as full a sense as any one word
is a translation of another. It is not like baptize, which was not a word
of our language. In is an English word, as truly as en is a Greek one.
It is given as an equivalent to en, not because it was formed from it, but
because in meaning it coincides with it. We adopted the word and its
meaning also.
2. As the instances in the acceptation of this preposition in which
the primary idea cannot be traced are extremely few, so it cannot be
admitted in a signification inconsistent with this idea, except when
necessity demands it. If the words in connexion admit the primary
and usual meaning, it is unwarrantable to look for another. Such a
use would render the passage inextricably equivocal. The passages in
which it is translated with, are, without exception, of this cast. They
would not make sense in our idiom, if en were translated in. Without
such a necessity, no translator would ever think of rendering en by with.
What is more usual than to find, when en is translated among, &c,
critics explaining it as being " literally in ?" Now, in the instance
alluded to, all the words in connexion admit the primary and usual
meaning of en. Even the most extravagant of our opponents admit,
that baptizo signifies to dip. If, then, the word also signifies to pour,
to use en in connexion with it, would render it altogether equivocal.
We could not from the passage determine its meaning. I contend,
then, that though en may sometimes be translated with, yet it cannot
be so used here. For if baptizo is allowed to denote dip, and not pour,
with is rejected as incongruous : if baptizo is supposed to signify either
dip or pour, then to use a preposition after it which usually signifies in,
but here in the sense of tvith, which is rare, would inevitably be equi-
vocal, or would rather lead to a false meaning. It is absurd to suppose,
16
122 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
that such an equivocal expression could be used with respect to the
performance of a Divine ordinance, which is to be a precedent for all
ages.
3. I have produced innumerable examples in which en is construed
with this verb incontestably in the sense of dipping. If, then, we have
found the disputed phrase in a situation in which our opponents must
admit our meaning of it; if the examples of this meaning of the phrase
are numerous ; and if no example can be produced in which the phrase
is used in a situation in which we must confess that it refers to pouring,
or any other thing but dipping, — all the laws of language forbid the
supposition of pouring. What can forbid the phrase to have its usual
meaning ? What can authorise a meaning which the phrase has not
necessarily in any other passage ?
4. Even Mr. Ewing's translation of boptizo will not construe with en
in the sense of with. He would not say, I pop you toith water, but I
pop upon you with water. Now, there is no upon in the verb. Mr.
Ewing, indeed, supposes himself at liberty to vary his word pop by any
preposition he chooses to subjoin to it. But he cannot do so without
something in the original to justify the variation. I have shown that
to pop, to pop upon, to pop into, &,c, are all different words. To con-
sider them all as contained in baptizo and in pop, is to say that a half-
penny is a guinea, because in a guinea there is a portion of copper, —
or that copper is brass, because brass contains copper as a part of its
composition.
5. Any translation that can be given of en is inconsistent with the
supposition that baptizo signifies to pour. We could not say, " I pour
you with water." Pour must be immediately followed by the thing
poured, and not with the person on whom anything is poured. It is not
/ pour you icith water, but / pour water upon you. The syntax, then,
of the word, as well as its acceptation, forbids pouring as the mode of
baptism.
What I have further to observe on this passage, will occur in my re-
marks on Mr. Ewing's attack on Dr. Campbell's note.
In admitting that en may sometimes signify with, Dr. Campbell
appears to ground the fact on a Hebraism. In this sense Mr. Ewing
understands him; in which he coincides. "That the phraseology to
which the Dr. refers," says Mr. Ewing, " does not restrict the sense to
in, but absolutely recommends the sense of with, appears from the
occasional omission of the preposition, the use of it in such phrases
being entirely a Hebraism, corresponding with the Hebrew beth, which,
as the Dr. owns, signifies with as well as in" Now, in opposition both
to Dr. Campbell and Mr. Ewing, I maintain that en in this use is not a
Hebraism, either in its meaning or use. It signifies with in classical
Greek, as well as in the Septuagint or New Testament ; and just in the
same circumstances. It is also as frequently used with this verb in the
heathen authors, as in the Scriptures. To convince any one of this, it
is necessary only to look over the examples which I have produced, both
with respect to bapto and baptizo, which perfectly coincide in their
syntax. Was Hippocrates a Hellenistic Jew ?
THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 123
Indeed, to enlarge the meaning of a Greek preposition, that it may
correspond with a Hebrew preposition, is a thing which, though the
conceit has been sanctioned by Dr. Campbell, and many great names, is
a pure absurdity. To do so, would not be to speak the Greek language.
To do so, would be to mislead all the Greek nations. There is not one
instance in which such a thing is done in the word of God. If the
apostles used the Greek prepositions, not as the Greeks themselves used
them, but as the Hebrews used theirs, they have not given a revelation
of the will of God. This view of the Hebraism of the New Testament
is one of the worst things in Dr. Campbell's translation. Whatever may
be the extent of the Hebraisms of the New Testament, they cannot,
consistently with the honour of revelation, be supposed to affect the
sense. This supposition is the resource of those who wish to corrupt
the Gospel of Christ, or, in some way, to modify a disagreeable doctrine.
Equally groundless, and even equally absurd, is Mr. Ewing's assertion,
that the fact that the preposition is sometimes omitted, recommends the
sense of with. If that preposition is sometimes written, and sometimes
left out, it is as clear as an axiom, that the passages in which it is
omitted, must agree with the passages in which it is written, and must
be translated just as if it were present. The meaning of the passages,
then, in which it is omitted, must be determined by those in which it is
written. When it is not expressed it must be understood. Such an
omission, then, can cast no light on the subject.
Mr. Ewing alleges, that " our English translators, at least, being
friends of immersion, would have been led by their system to have
patronised the Dr.'s translation. But this is a fallacious argument.
It is true, as Mr. Ewing says, that on this question our translators were
" directly opposed" to him. But what sort of friends were they to
immersion ? Just such as Professor Porson, and the thousands of
learned men who have the candour to confess the truth, though, as they
think the matter of little importance, they practise the contrary. There
was then no temptation to induce them to testify for immersion. There
was the strongest temptation to induce them to accommodate their
translation to the practice of their church, not to their views of the
original mode of baptism. Dr. Wall was so far a friend of immersion,
that he would have preferred it; yet how has he laboured to prove that it
is not necessary ! Mr. Ewing's friend's strictures, then, on Dr. Ryland,
have no weight, for they view the subject in a false light. The authority
of our translators in our favour, is the authority, not of friends, but of
practical opposers ; and, as Dr. Campbell has shown, real opposers, in
every case, that could, in their judgment, admit pouring or sprinkling.
Dr. Campbell has censured our translators as inconsistent, in render-
ing en udati " with water," while they rendered en to Iordane " in
Jordan." How does Mr. Ewing vindicate them from inconsistency ?
Why, by alleging that the former refers to the act and elements of
baptism, and the latter to the place ! Now, this might vindicate Mr.
Ewing, but it does not vindicate our translators. Mr. Ewing forgets
that the conceit that Iordane is not the river, but the district in the
neighbourhood of the river, is of his own invention. Our translators
124 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
evidently understood it of the river itself, as every sober reader must do.
Our translators, then, remain under Dr. Campbell's censure, for any-
thing that Mr. Ewing has done to relieve them.
to O
But let us see if he can justify himself in this business. I admit that
"a difference of connexion" will justify us in "understanding the same
word in a different sense." But I see no difference of connexion here.
On the contrary, the word Jordan, in the sixth verse, as evidently
means the river Jordan, as tvater in the eleventh verse means water.
The Jordan never signifies, as Mr. Ewing supposes, the plain of Jordan,
the valley of Jordan, or Jordan-dale. This is a figment formed for a
particular purpose. Can Mr. Ewing justify this explanation by a single
corresponding example, in which a similar phrase must be so understood ?
Were we to read in the newspapers that certain persons in Glasgow
were baptized in the Clyde, should we understand that it imported merely
that they were baptized in Clydesdale? This is a daring perversion of
the words of the Holy Spirit. It requires a hardihood that every
heretic does not possess. An Arian or a Socinian does not require more.
No Neological gloss is more extravagant. The Spirit of God tells us
that our Lord did many miracles ; the Neologist forces him to say that
there was nothing miraculous in the Saviour's works. The Spirit of
God tells us that the people of Israel were baptized by John in the
Jordan ; Mr. Ewing forces him to say that it was not in Jordan, but in
Jordan-dale. What a system is it that compels its abettors to take such
liberties with the word of God ! I view such conduct, not only with
disapprobation, but with horror.
But Mr. Ewing says that an Evangelist explains the thing in his
sense. This is high authority indeed. I will ask no better. If this is
made good, I will bow with submission. " That it was not the water of
the river, but the country on its banks, is evident from the fuller and
more particular account of the apostle John. What Matthew calls, in
Jordan, John calls, in Bethabara, and expressly says, it was beyond
Jordan."
I admit the premises ; I deny the conclusion. Let the two evange-
lists refer to the same thing, yet what the one calls Jordan, the other
does not call Bethabara. Matthew speaks of the river in which John
was baptizing ; John of the town in which he was baptizing. John is
more particular as to the part of the river in which the Baptist was
baptizing; it was in the town of Bethabara. Matthew is more particular
with respect to the water in which he was baptizing ; it was the Jordan.
Corresponding to this, with respect to the same person, one writer might
say, " he was baptizing in the Clyde ;" another, " he was baptizing in
Glasgow." Mr. Ewing himself, in asserting that John's account of this
matter is more particular than that of Matthew, virtually admits that it
is not necessary that Jordan should be perfectly equivalent to Bethabara;
for if one account may be more particular than another, Bethabara may
axpress the place or part of the river, while Jordan expresses the water
in which John baptized
Let it, however, be supposed that the expression of the one evangelist
exactly corresponds to that of the other, what follows? As Jordan
THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 125
signifies Jordan-dale, so Bethabara must not denote the town, but the
whole district supposed to be called Jordan-dale. According to Mr.
Ewing himself, these two words do not correspond. He makes the one to
denote the whole country ; the other, one town situated in the country.
Still it may be said, if the two accounts refer to the same thing, as
John is said to be baptizing in Bethabara, and as this town was beyond
Jordan, so he could not be baptizing in the river, which was on one
side of the town. Mr. Ewing will let us come to the margin of the
stream, but the phrase, he says, will not carry us " one jot farther." This
is hard enough. I will try to advance a little into the river. This I am
enabled to do with the sanction of the usual phraseology in similar
cases. The limits of a town, in speaking in a general way, are not con-
fined to the ground occupied by the houses'. Suppose, for instance,
that a man is charged with having committed a breach of the peace, on
a certain day of the month, in Glasgow. In proving an alibi, he alleges
that he was on that day in the town of Belfast. Opposite counsel cries
out, " My lords, and gentlemen of the jury, he is a perjured rascal, for
I can prove that he was the whole of that day in a ship in Belfast har-
bour. He never once entered the town that day." What will the judge
and jury think of such a mode of proof? Surely he was in Belfast
when he was in the port of Belfast. And is it not the same thing with
the town and port of Bethabara? When Mr. Ewing changes his views
on the subject, and comes over to Belfast to baptize his brethren in that
town, it will be asked by some of the people of Glasgow, Where is Mr.
Ewing? The reply will be, " He is in Belfast, baptizing the indepen-
dent church of that town." This reply will be made without any refer-
ence to the situation of the water. Might it not also be said, that the
people of Glasgow go down to Gourock or Helensburgh to bathe? Yet
the place of bathing is in the sea. Might it not also be said, that such
a person was drowned in Port-Glasgow while he was bathing in the
Clyde ? In like manner, it might have been added to John's account,
that the Baptist was baptizing in Jordan. John was baptizing in Betha-
bara in the Jordan. Now, Mr. Ewing, say candidly, am I not now entitled
to step a little distance from the margin into the river ? Have I not de-
molished this strong hold?
But I have many other resources, had it been necessary to employ
them on this point. A small bend in the river, or hollow in the bed on
one side, might have formed a basin, so that houses might actually have
been nearer to the centre of the river, than some parts of the basin. A
bare possibility is all that is necessary to obviate a difficulty. But sober
criticism could never dwell on such things. The common forms of speech
utterly condemn such a mode of opposition. Indeed, the houses do not
generally extend to the margin of the sea or river. If a town was limit-
ed by the houses, the quay itself would often be no part of it. The
harbour has as good a title to be included in the town as the quay.
But there is another awkward situation in which our view, it seems,
places John the Baptist, out of which I must endeavour to deliver him.
Mr. Ewing asserts, that if John the Baptist baptized in Bethabara, stand-
ing in the water of the river, then he must have been in that situation
126 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
when he bore his testimony to the priests and Levites. Now, it is a
hard thing to keep the poor man in the water during this discourse. I
will endeavour, then, to put him on dry ground. The argument is, that
in John i. 23, all the things previously mentioned are said to have been
done in Bcthabara, tohcre John was baptizing. Therefore, if he was
standing in the water when he spoke to the priests, all the things are
said to be done in the same place. The answer is, all the things were
indeed done in the same place, that is, in Bethabara, but this does not
imply that they were done in the same part of Bethabara. When Mr
Ewing comes to baptize his brethren in Belfast, it is likely he may have
a fierce encounter with the Arians. The Glasgow newspapers will say,
"these things happened in Belfast, where Mr. Ewing was baptizing.'
Will the people of Glasgow understand that the engagement with the
Arians was when Mr. Ewing was actually baptizing? Ah, Mr. Ewing!
what shall I call such a mode of opposing immersion? Shall I call it
childish? Or shall I call it perverse? Were it in reality asserted, that
John gave his testimony to the priests while he was baptizing, I would
implicitly believe it. The thing is not impossible. There is not, how-
ever, the smallest appearance of such an assertion.
That Jordan denotes the river, and not the country in the neighbour-
hood of Jordan, is not only obvious from the word of God, it is expressly
asserted to be the river by Mark i. 5, where the word river is joined to
it. "And there went out unto him all the land of Judea, and they of
Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confess-
ing their sins." Nothing can limit the word more clearly than this, in
the river Jordan. As if the Holy Spirit had anticipated Mr. Ewing's
perversion of the word Jordan, by converting it, without any authority,
into Jordan-dale, the word river is added to it by Mark. Mr. Ewing,
indeed, says, that if John i. 28, Matt. iii. 6 — 13, John x. 40, are con-
sidered, they will explain Mark i. 5, in his sense. But I hope I have
shown that these passages have no bearing on the point. It would be a
strange explanation that would explain the river Jordan not to be the
river Jordan, but something else. This would be a Neological expla-
nation. There is in the passage under consideration, other evidence
that baptism was performed by immersion. It is said that Jesus, when
he was baptized, went up straightway from the water. I admit the proper
translation of apo is from, and not out of; and that the argument from
the former is not of the same nature with that which is founded on eh,
out of. I perfectly agree with Mr. Ewing, that apo would have its mean-
ing fully verified, if they had only gone down to the edge of the wa-
ter. I shall not take a jot more from a passage than it contains. The
Bible is orthodox enough for me as it is. How then can I deduce dip-
ping from the phrases going doicn, and coming up from ? My argument
is this. — If baptism had not been by immersion, there can be no ade-
quate cause alleged for going to the river. Can sober judgment, can can-
dour suppose, that if a handful of water would have sufficed for baptism,
they would have gone to the river ? Many evasions have been alleged
to get rid of this argument, but it never will be fairly answered. I have
strong suspicions that these evasions are scarcely satisfactory, even to
THE MODE OP BAPTISM. 127
those who make them. I am much mistaken if they are not perplexed
with the circumstance of John the Baptist's great predilection for the
neighbourhood of Jordan, and other places, where the water is the very
reason assigned for the preference. There is no spot on the earth in
which a human being can be found, that without any inconvenience will
not afford a handful of water. Even in a besieged town, with a scarcity
of water, what would sprinkle the whole inhabitants would not be felt as
a sensible loss.
Mr. Ewing attempts to account for the above phraseology, by the fact
that fountains and rivers are generally in hollow places. This, indeed,
accounts for the phraseology , but does it account for this fact ! Whether
the river was in a hill or in a valley, why did they go to it, when a
handful of water would have sufficed. Mr. Ewing himself says, " I
believe, indeed, that John frequented the banks of the Jordan, as the
most convenient place of the wilderness, not only for multitudes to attend
him, but also for having water at hand with which to baptize them."
But was there any place in Judea in which he could not find a supply of
water {ox popping or sprinkling? The greatest crowd that ever assem-
bled might be popped at a small fountain. Besides, however many the
persons were who went to his baptism, there is no foundation to suppose
that immense crowds were always with him. The account itself does
not imply that there ever was at any time an immense crowd. All
Judea and Jerusalem are said to be baptized by him ; but they are not
said to have been with him at once, or even in crowds at any one time.
Why should they be supposed to have staid with him any considerable
time?
But our argument on this passage is not only that they frequented
the banks of Jordan ; but that, being there for the performance of
baptism, they went, down to the water. Now, if an army encamped on
Glasgow Green in a time of war, were all to be baptized by popping,
would they bring the water from the river, or would they all go to
the very edge of the water? Why did Jesus go down to the water,
when the water might as well have been brought up to him ? Does
Mr. Ewing take the infants to the edge of the Clyde when he is popping
them ? This answer, then, is but an evasion. No reason has ever been
given, or ever will be given, to account for this fact, on the hypothesis
of baptizing with a handful of water.
Mr. Ewing observes that this phraseology is confined to baptisms out
of doors. Very true, but in Mr. Ewing's baptism, why were there any
baptisms out of doors ? If they are popped, upon with a handful of
water, any number might successively be popped in the same house with
equal convenience as out of doors. When a conveniency for baptism
was found within doors, there was no recourse to a river : and then there
could be no going down nor coming up. When a person was baptized
in a bath, the baptizer was not in the water at all.
Mr. Ewing says, " Rebekah went down to the well — and came up."
" Does this imply that she immersed herself? No. She went down to
the well, and filled her pitcher, and came up." Very true. But are the
cases parallel? Do they not differ in the very point in which it is
128 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
essential for Mr. Ewing' s argument that they should agree? This illus-
tration favours us, and refutes Mr. Ewing himself. If Rebekah went
down to the well, she had a good errand to the well — an errand that is
not left to be supplied by conjecture, but is expressly specified, namely,
to fill her pitcher. Can Mr. Ewing show such an errand in going to the
edge of the river for popping? Even the idiot that followed the Armagh
coach to Dublin, to see if the great wheels would overtake the little
ones, had an errand. But if popping is baptism, there could be no
errand to the river for the performance of the ordinance. " Gideon,"
says Mr. Ewing, " brought down the people unto the water." " Was it
to immerse them 1 No; it was to give them an opportunity of drinking."
And could there be a better refutation of Mr. Ewing than what he gives
himself? Gideon did not lead the people to the river for no purpose.
The object is expressed. Let us have such a reason for John's baptizing
at Jordan, and it will suffice us. Mr. Ewing entirely mistakes the jet of
this argument. I observe also, that Matt. iii. 6, Mark i. 5, cannot admit
pouring as the sense of baptize Ebaptisanto en to Iordane cannot be
rendered they were poured in Jordan, nor with Jordan, nor in Jordan-
dale. The water is poured, not the people. If the clumsy expression
poured upon could be admitted, it is not to be found. The upon is
wanting. The people were poured upon in Jordan-dale, would be a very
awkward expression. Yet shabby as such an auxiliary would be, even
that is not to be found.
Let us next examine the baptism of the eunuch, Acts viii. 36. " And
as they went on their way, they came to a certain water : and the eunuch
said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And
Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he
answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And
he commanded the chariot to stand still : and they went down both into
the water, both Philip and the eunuch ; and he baptized him. And when
they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away
Philip," &c. This is as correct and as literal a translation of the words
as can possibly be made ; and surely it is so plain that the most illiterate
man can be at no loss to discover from it the mind of the Lord on the
subject. I have written some hundred pages on the mode of this ordi-
nance, yet to a mind thirsting to know the will of God, and uninfluenced
by prejudice, this passage without comment is in my view amply suffi-
cient. The man who can read it, and not see immersion in it, must have
something in his mind unfavourable to the investigation of truth. As
long as I fear God, I cannot, for all the kingdoms of the world, resist the
evidence of this single document. Nay, had I no more conscience than
Satan himself, I could not as a scholar attempt to expel immersion from
this account. All the ingenuity of all the critics in Europe could not
silence the evidence of this passage. Amidst the most violent perversion
that it can sustain on the rack, it will still cry out, immersion, immersion!
Philip, in preaching, had shown that believers were to be baptized
immediately, yet the eunuch never speaks of being baptized till he came
to water. Now, this implies immersion. Had a handful of water been
sufficient, this might have been found in any place. Had it been even
THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 129
a desert without water, there can be no doubt that the eunuch would
have a supply of water with him.
When they came to the water, instead of sending down one of the
retinue to bring up a little water, they went down to the water. Mr.
Ewing supposes that our argument is founded on the mere going down
and coming up. But it is upon the circumstance that no reason can be
given for the going down but the immersion. What would take them
to the water, when the water could be more conveniently brought to
them?
But they not only went down to the water ; they went into the water.
What would take them into the water, if a handful of water would
suffice?
Let it be observed, also, that there is something very peculiar in the
account of their going into the water. It is not only said, " they went
into the Avater ;" our attention is fixed on the fact that they both went
into the water. This, we might think, would suffice. Yet the Holy
Spirit marks the circumstance still more precisely. He adds, both Philip
and the eunuch. Can any one imagine that such a precision, such
an apparent redundancy of expression, is not designed to teach some-
thing that the Spirit of Inspiration foresaw would be denied? Had the
water been deep enough at the edge, the eunuch only might have been
in the water. But in this case both the baptizer and the baptized went
into the water. Now, this determines that the preposition eis must be
rendered into, and not unto, as Mr. Ewing would have it. Had the
account related merely to the going down to the edge of the water, there
would be no use in saying that they both went down. Could it be neces-
sary to inform us that Philip, the baptizer, went to the place of baptism
as well as the person to be baptized? What would take the one down
without the other ? There is good reason, however, to inform us that
they both went into the water ; because, in certain circumstances, it would
have been necessary only for one of them to be in the water ; and the
relation of the fact takes away the ground of perversion.
It is not only said that they went into the water, but their return is
called a coming up out of the water. They could not come out of the
water, if they had not been in it. This is more precise than the account
of our Lord's baptism. There it is said that he came upfro?n the water.
Here it is out of the water.
Let us now see how Mr. Ewing attempts to evade the evidence of this
passage. Let my readers put their invention to work, and try what they
can think of to darken this evidence. Mr. Ewing, I engage, will go
beyond them. His ingenuity is unparalleled. He destroys our doctrine
even by demonstration. Demonstration ! Ay, demonstration ! Jesus
is said, Matt. iii. 16, to have gone up from the water, not out of the
water as our version renders it. " Now," says Mr. Ewing, " it surely
will not be said that Philip had any occasion to go farther with the
Ethiopian nobleman than John did with our Saviour, in order to the
administration of baptism. It is reasonable, then, to understand the eis
and the ck of Acts viii. 38, 39, as signifying precisely what is indicated
by the apo of Matt. iii. 16." Now, is not this demonstration? I may as
17
130 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
well think to pierce the divine shield of Achilles as this argument. But
I will strike. Truth is stronger than sophistry. The helmet of Goliath
could not resist the pebble from a sling. I deny the first principle on
which this argument is founded. It is taken for granted that apo can
reach no farther than the edge of the water. Now, while I admit that
this is all that is necessarily imported in this preposition, I contend that
it can apply to the centre of the water, or even the farther edge of the
water, as well as the edge on this side. Apo signifies the point of
departure from an object, but that point may be in any part of the object
to which there is access. Whether the point of departure be the edge
or the centre, or the nearer or the farther edge, depends not on the word,
but on the circumstances, or other information. If the point of depar-
ture be an impenetrable object, it must be from the edge ; but if the
object be penetrable, the departure may be from any part in it. If a
fowl on the opposite side of the river, or in the middle of it, takes wing,
and, flying across, alights on a hill, we say, it flew from the river, just
the same as if it had commenced its flight on this side. This is the
distinction between apo and ck. The former denotes the point of depar-
ture, in whatever part of the object that point is found ; the latter always
supposes that the point of departure is within the object. Of course apo
cannot serve us in Matt. iii. 16, but as little can it injure us. It is
indefinite as to the situation of the point of departure. In this case, then,
it is not necessary to suppose that Philip and the eunuch went farther
than John and our Saviour. Though apo does not imply that the latter
were in the water, it is not inconsistent with this, if other evidence
demands it. Besides, it might be on some occasions necessary to go
farther into the water than on this. At some places, baptism may be
performed at the edge ; in others, it may be necessary to advance to the
centre.
But if apo could not reach one inch into the water, I should find no
difficulty in refuting Mr. Ewing's argument. If our Lord and John were
in the water, in returning they must have come from the edge of the
water. They would then have come from the edge of the water, and
from beyond. Though the account commences with the edge, it does
not deny that there was a previous point of departure. When I say,
this friend has come from Edinburgh, all I assert is, that the point of
his departure was Edinburgh. It might be the very edge ; but it might
be also from the very centre. On the other hand, when I say, my friend
is out of Edinburgh, it expresses that he was within the city. We might
also fix a point of departure, which will apply only to a certain point,
and reach no farther. Yet this will not deny a previous point of com-
mencement of departure. We started at such an hour from Prince' s-
street, and at such an hour we arrived in Glasgow. Now, this point of
departure cannot be extended an inch, yet it is quite consistent that we
might have had a previous point of departure from Duke-street.
Though I have thus proved, that for anything to be found in apo, our
Lord might have been baptized in the middle of Jordan, yet since apo
necessarily implies no more than the edge as the point of departure ;
since we are not otherwise informed that John and He went into the
THE MODE OP BAPTISM. 131
water previously to baptizing, as we are informed with respect to Philip
and the eunuch, I think there is no reason to believe that John the
Baptist usually went into the water in baptizing. The striking differ-
ence between the accounts of these two baptisms, leads me to conclude
that John chose some place on the edge of the Jordan that admitted the
immersion of the person baptized, while the baptizer remained on the
margin. The place of baptizing the eunuch did not admit this, — most
providentially, indeed, because it affords an example that cannot be
plausibly perverted. If the above distinction is well founded, there is
no ground for the jest, that John the Baptist was an amphibious animal.
There is no necessity at all to suppose that eis and ek are limited in Acts
viii. 38, 39, by apo in Matt. iii. 16.
"I am far from saying," says Mr. Ewing, "that eis does not often
signify into, and ek, out of." And I am as far from denying that eis
sometimes signifies unto. Its most usual signification, however, is into ;
and in general applies when the thing in motion enters within the object
to which it refers. There are instances, however, in which the motion
ends at the object. It is, therefore, not of itself definite. But it is evi-
dent that there must be some way of rendering it definite in each of its
occurrences, else language would be unintelligible. We are not to sup-
pose that when a word is in itself indefinite, we are at liberty, in every
occurrence of it, to understand it as we will. The sound critic is able,
on all occasions, to limit it by the connexion, or by circumstances. I
observe, then, that as this word usually signifies motion to a place end-
ing within the place, so it is always to be understood in this sense, ex-
cept circumstances forbid it. I believe the few examples in which the
motion does not end within the object towards which the thing in motion
is directed, are all of this kind. They are such as cannot cause a
moment's hesitation. But if it had such a meaning here, it would
evidently be equivocal. It would as readily lead astray as inform.
Agreeably to this, in the very examples produced by Mr. Ewing, from
Gen. xxiv. 16, Judges vii. 5, where the motion ended at the margin of
the river, this preposition is not used. It is not eis, but epi ten pegen ;
not eis, but pros to udor.
This observation is confirmed by the circumstance, that eis is applied
to the river Jordan, when the motion ceases on the banks, in an instance
that can create no doubt. 2 Kings vi. 4 : " And when they came to (eis)
Jordan." Here the object of the journey determines the extent of the
meaning of the preposition.
But I utterly deny such an indefiniteness in the meaning of ek. In
opposition to Mr. Ewing's assertion, I say that it always signifies out of.
I say this while my eye is upon all the examples alleged by him and his
learned friend.
" Now," says Mr. Ewing, " wherever eis and ek correspond to each
other, the extent of the one must measure the extent of the other. The
point of departure to return, cannot be different from the point of arrival
in going. In other words, if eis signify to, then ek must, in the same
connexion, signify nothing more than from." What can be more
mathematical than this? It is as clear as that twelve inches and a foot
132 THE MODE OP BAPTISM.
denote the same measure. The demonstration is perfect, if the axiom
on which it is founded be granted. The demonstration is drawn from
the hypothetical proposition, " if eis signify to." But I deny that in this
instance it signifies to. Mr. Evving himself admits that it often signifies
into. Why, then, is it taken for granted that it cannot so signify here ?
To do Mr. Ewing any service, eis must always signify to. It cannot be
employed to measure ek, if it is itself indefinite. It is very true that
the progress into the water cannot be less than the progress out. All
depends on the distance advanced. Now, though eis might be used, if
the advance was only to the margin ; yet as it can be used, if the ad-
vance were to the centre, it cannot restrain ek to its own lowest extent.
On the other hand, I will reverse the demonstration, on the principle
that ek always signifies out of, which I will prove. If ek always signifies
out of, as one of these prepositions, when they correspond to each other,
must measure the other, then, though eis is in itself indefinite, ek ren-
ders it definite in this instance. As ek signifies out of, eis must here
signify into. Now, I defy ingenuity to refute my demonstration. If
an elastic chain is twelve inches at the stretch, but only ten when
relaxed ; and if the same measure is called a foot, in the same connexion,
then we are to make the foot determine the extent of the chain, in the
instance referred to, and not the chain to determine the number of
inches in the foot. The definite must limit the indefinite.
Dr. Wardlaw concurs with Mr. Ewing, in thinking that nothing can
be learned from en, and eis, and ek, the prepositions usually construed
with baptizo. "It is truly surprising," says he, " that so much stress
should be laid on the frequently vague import of a Greek preposition."
I ask Dr. Wardlaw, what preposition in any language is perfectly
univocal ? Are there many words of any part of speech, except those
expressive of mode, which are perfectly univocal? Are the above
prepositions more vague than the prepositions that correspond to them
in our language? Does it follow from a word's having two significa-
tions, that no stress can be laid on itself, in determining on the evidence
of its meaning in any particular situation? If a word is sometimes
used in a sense different from its usual one, are we at liberty to under-
stand it in such unusual signification at random, as often as it may suit
our argument ? Were this the case, every sentence we utter would be
a riddle. Every time we open our lips, we use words which are as
vague as any Greek prepositions, yet the most ignorant are not misled
by the circumstance. It is only when the observation applies to dead
languages, that it imposes on those who do not trace arguments to first
principles. En may sometimes be translated with; but there must be
laws that regulate this matter, else human language could not be suffi-
cient for testimony. Eis, in rare cases, may be translated unto; but
if this will justify us in assigning this meaning to it when it suits our
purpose, nothing could be definitely expressed in human speech. Yet
this is the resource of Dr. Wardlaw, in evading the evidence of immer-
sion ; — a resource which, if used with respect to English, would expose
the critic to derision. I have pointed out some of the laws that deter-
mine in such cases ; and whether I have been successful or not, such
THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 133
laws must exist, if human language is an adequate evidence of human
thought. This I hold as an axiom.
But I will venture to appeal still farther to the common sense of my
readers. Admitting all that is demanded for this supposed vagueness, is
it not utterly incredible that, with respect to this ordinance, each of
these three prepositions should assume, as it were in concert to deceive
us, its most unusual signification? Can we ascribe such a miracle of
delusion to the Spirit of truth ? Now, that in is the most usual signifi-
cation of en ; into, the most usual signification of eis ; and out of, the
most usual signification of ek, I suppose no one will be hardy enough to
deny. I could easily prove that the exceptions to this, with respect to
the two former, are much fewer than they are generally supposed ; and
when I come to Mr. Ewing's Appendix, I will show that, with respect to
ek, there is no exception at all. But I am here taking for granted all
that our opponents demand ; and allowing the vagueness to be as great
as they suppose, is it not absurd to suppose that the Holy Spirit would
use the three prepositions all in an unusual sense, when there were other
prepositions better suited to the purpose ? The absurdity is still
heightened by the consideration that these prepositions are used in con-
nexion with a verb, which the hardiest of our opponents cannot deny as
importing, at least in one of its senses, to immerse. The usual sense of
the whole three prepositions is in our favour : the verb admits our
meaning, even according to Mr. Ewing ; but according to the great bulk
of the most learned of our opponents, this is its primary meaning :
judging, then, even from their own admissions, is it credible that the
Holy Spirit would use language so calculated to mislead ? Could there
be any reason to pitch upon such phraseology, except to deceive ? If
pouring or sprinkling had been appointed, there were words which univo-
cally denote these meanings. Why, then, should the Holy Spirit pass by
these words, and pitch upon a word that, according to our opponents,
has perhaps a dozen of significations? If there are prepositions that
would, in their usual acceptation, express the meaning our opponents
attach to the three prepositions in question, why should the latter be
employed in an unusual sense? There never was a greater specimen of
Jesuitism, than that which Dr. Wardlaw here charges on the Holy Spirit.
But this mode of reasoning carries its condemnation in its very face.
If the controversy were in a language of which we were entirely ignorant,
and on a subject to which we were utterly strangers, we might hold it as a
self-evident truth, that the man who screens himself under the vagueness
of words, and argues at random, on the supposition that on any emer-
gency it is fair to take a word in any signification that in any situation
he may find attached to it, has either a bad cause, or does not know how
to defend a good one. As no one will charge our opponents with the
latter, the cause which they defend must be incapable of a sound defence.
But after we have beaten them down the hill, and pushed them to the
very verge of the stream ; nay, after we have driven them into Jordan
up to the chin, these obstinate enemies of immersion will not pop down
their heads into the water, but will pop the water upon the head. Both
of these writers declare resolutely that they would not surrender, even
134 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
in the midst of the river. " Let it be supposed," says Mr. Ewing, " that
the baptizer led the person to be baptized, not only to the water, but
into it: the question returns, what did he do with him there?" Dr.
Wardlaw also expressly refuses to submit, even were it granted " that
the parties were in Jordan when the ceremony was performed." What
shall I do now? Of what service is all my criticism? Can I put them
under the water either by the verb or by its syntax? I will first try to
discipline them a little with common sense ; for if I cannot succeed on
this point, it is in vain to appeal to the laws of language. I admit that
it is possible to sprinkle or pour water upon a person in a river, as well
as in a church or parlour. But in the awful presence of the living God,
I ask Mr. Ewing and Dr. Wardlaw if they think it credible that John
the Baptist would take into the water the multitudes whom he baptized,
for the purpose of pouring a little on their faces ? If they can answer
this in the affirmative, I have no more to say on that point. I must
appeal to the common sense of mankind. What other purpose could
there be in going into the water, but to be immersed ? Turks, Jews, and
Infidels, declare your judgment. Every other mode might have been
observed, with much greater convenience, out of the water than in it.
I know it is possible for Mr. Ewing and Dr. Wardlaw to take every
infant baptized by them, with all the nurses and attendants, down into
the river Clyde, and pop them there ; but verily, if I read in the news-
papers, that they did this, I should be convinced that they were deranged.
Madness or fanaticism would universally be supposed to be the cause.
Upon such evidence, could the Lord Chancellor refuse an act of lunacy
against them? And shall they ascribe to John the Baptist and the
Saviour, conduct that in Great Britain would prove lunacy ? It is use-
less to reason with persons so obstinate. Neither argument nor criticism
can reach such extravagance. As Dr. Campbell, in reference to the
class of first principles which he ascribes to common sense, says, that to
deny them, does not imply a contradiction, — it implies only lunacy ; so
to assert that John the Baptist led the multitudes into the river Jordan,
in order to pour a little water into their faces, does not imply an impos-
sibility,— it implies only that they were all mad.
However, as I have now, by their own admission, got them into the
water, I will try to force them under it, before I let them out. Dr.
Wardlaw asserts that eis tonlordanen maybe translated at or in Jordan.
To this I reply, 1. At and in are not senses of eis. 2. There is no
reason to bring them to the water, or place them in the water, but the
intention of immersing them into the water. 3. A multitude of
examples might be produced, in which eis is construed with baptizo, in
which the signification is without doubt immersion. I appeal to those I
have given. No one example can be produced in which eis in construc-
tion with the verb, signifies either at or in. The phrase, then, cannot
be supposed to have a signification here different from its usual signifi-
cation ; and which there is no single proof that it ever has. I will force
them down, then, by the verb and the preposition separately, and by
both united as a phrase. I defy them to produce, out of Greek
literature, one instance in which the phrase has the meaning contended
for by them.
THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 135
Dr. Wardlaw partakes with Mr. Ewing in his astonishment, that an
argument should be drawn from going down and coming up. If my
astonishment had not been entirely exhausted with the Jordan scene, I
should be mightily astonished that both these writers so far mistake the
jet of the argument. The going down and the coming up are not
supposed to refer to the act of immersion. As pouring water into a bath
is necessary in order to immersion in the bath ; so going down to the
river is necessary in order to dipping in the river. We do not confound
the going into the water with the immersion in the water. This would
show the same want of discrimination that confounds pouring with
baptism.
But Mr. Ewing overturns all our arguments and criticisms with a
difficulty. "If the act of baptizing," says he, "had consisted of immers-
ing the subject in water, there would surely have been some allusion to
the lowering of his body in that supine direction, which is, I believe,
commonly observed for the purpose of bringing it under the surface :
some allusion, also, to that stooping attitude, which is at the same time
necessary on the part of the immerser. But there is nothing of this
kind to be found in all the Scriptures, either in the accompanying
phraseology, or, as we have seen, in the name of the ordinance itself."
Now, if the surely was a real surely, the conclusion would be undeniable ;
for I do not know a single reference of the kind demanded. But what
makes this surely necessary 1 Why, it is necessary to keep Mr. Ewing's
theory from sinking, but this is its only necessity. If no information is
given about the way of putting the body under water, then no part of
the meaning of the ordinance depends on one way more than another.
We are then at liberty to do it in the most convenient way. But this
requirement is very strange in one who maintains baptism to be a pop-
ping of a handful of water out of the cup of nature, or the hollow of the
hand, upon the turned up face of the person baptized. Each of these
things is a necessary part of baptism, yet I am so stupid as to be unable
to see a glimpse of any of them in the Scriptures.
I shall now examine the example in Mr. Ewing's Appendix, alleged
to prove that elc sometimes signifies merely from, as perfectly synony-
mous with apo. I have admitted that en may, in certain circumstances,
be translated with, and that eis sometimes denotes motion to a place,
that ends on this side of the object, without occasioning any confusion
or ambiguity. But I have denied that elc is ever used when the object
departing is not supposed to have commenced its departure within the
object from which it departs. Now, Mr. Ewing's very learned friend,
who writes the Appendix, in reply to some observations by Dr. Ryland,
steadily abides by his first position ; and by a number of instances
alleges, with the utmost confidence, that the use of the Greek language
proves the supposed laxity in the use of eh. The general acquaintance
of this gentleman with Greek literature, entitles his opinion to the
highest respect ; and I am willing to allow him to be in all respects what
Mr. Ewing represents. I take the utmost liberty in exposing false
reasoning and false criticism, even in those whom I respect. God's truth
is a paramount object, and whatever tends to pervert it must be cut
down. The extensive reading in Greek writers, which this gentleman
136 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
possesses, is a qualification of indispensable importance to a critic; and
that he is conversant in the philosophy of language, is obvious at a
glance. I stand upon ground too firm to make me fear the talents of
my antagonist, and I should feel ashamed were I conscious of under-
rating these talents through dread of them. No man unjustly disparages
the abilities of his opponent, who is not conscious either of having a bad
cause, or of his inability to defend a good one.
The learned writer of the Appendix says : " The truth is, that though
apo and ek were originally distinct, in the progress of the language they
came to be used indiscriminately, and while apo encroached on the
province of ek, ck in return usurped part of the territories of apo." Now,
on the very face of this observation, I pronounce it unphilosophical ; and
I would confidently do so, had the assertion respected a language of
which I do not know the letters. It is contrary to the first principles
of language, that prepositions appointed to express different relations,
should be used to express the same relation. Were this the case, the
prepositions would be two only in sound ; one of them would cumber
rather than enrich the language. There is a sense in which one word
may be said to encroach on the territories of another ; that is, it may be
used in a situation which another usually fills. But this is not properly
an encroachment. So far as it properly goes, the territories are its own.
The territory occupied by both, belongs exclusively to neither. It is
common, and either may be used at pleasure. But consistently with
this joint reign, either may have a peculiar territory, into which it is
usurpation in the other to enter. Were it true, according to the learned
writer, that apo and ek at random usurp each other's territories, it would
be impossible for criticism to ascertain anything from their use. Lan-
guage would be incapable of definite meaning. From my account of
them, it is clear that in a vast multitude of instances, they may be used
in the same place, optionally. But even here, it is possible to discrimi-
nate them. Each of them has in every instance its own distinctive
meaning. I may say in English, this friend is out of Glasgow, or from
Glasgow, yet out of and from are not the same. The one expression
denotes that the point of departure was in the city ; the other may have
its point of departure either in or at the city. There are cases also in
which the English preposition could not be used in the same situation.
In a besieged city, the expression, " this soldier has come out of the city,"
is very different from " this soldier has come from the city." I assert,
then, that the fact that these prepositions may be used often in the same
situation, is no evidence that they have not their characteristic meaning;
and far less is it evidence that they are in all things indiscriminate.
While they have a common territory, each has a province of its own.
Even when apo is used where ek might be used, there is this difference,
that the former is not definite, and does not mark the idea which the
use of the other would have marked. I call the attention of critics to
this distinction as one of vast importance, and one which has been
universally overlooked. It has been hitherto taken for granted, that
if two words are interchangeable in any situation, they may, at the
pleasure of the critic, be supposed interchangeable. I maintain thai
THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 137
two words with meanings characteristically distinct, may have in other
things a common province, while there are laws to ascertain the extent
of the common province, and to limit each within its peculiar boundary.
I maintain even farther, that in the common province each expresses its
own meaning. They reign without interference even over the common
territory. Now, if I am well founded in these observations, they will be
of vast advantage in ascertaining definitely the import of language.
Instead of being a nose-of-wax, as critics in general have made the
Scriptures, temerity will not be able to deface their features.
With respect to the prepositions apo and ek, though they may often
be used interchangeably, yet the latter always implies intusposition ; the
former the point of departure in general. But the writer of the Appen-
dix has alleged a number of examples to prove, " that ek may be, and
often is, made use of to express removal, distance, or separation, merely
where previous intusposition neither was, nor could be in view." Now,
if his examples prove this, let him have it. That none of them do so,
I am quite confident.
His first example is from Thucydides. Speaking of a promontory,
he says, " which was steep from the sea, and not easily attacked from
the land." The example has not the colour of opposition to our doc-
trine. Were I lecturing on the passage to students, I should remark as
a beauty, the distinctive import of ek, which this writer's criticism
teaches him to overlook. The promontory is supposed to rise out of the
sea below, as a tree grows out of the ground. The imagination views
the object commencing at the bottom of the sea, and rising a vast height
above its surface. Do we not ourselves speak of a rock rising out of
the ocean ? There is nothing here said in Greek, but what we ourselves
say in English, yet out of with us is never from. As to the example
alleged, there is no real motion, or point of departure, whether apo or ek
is used. The point of departure is merely in the view of the imagina-
tion. While examples of this kind still preserve the original distinc-
tion, yet examples most decisively to the point must be taken from real
motion, and a real point of departure. It is with these that apo and ek
are connected on the subject of baptism. The writer remarks : " The
historian surely never meant to convey the idea, that the steep part of
the rock had formerly been within the rock." The surely is granted,
but the observation is surely so absurd as to need no answer. When we
say that " a rock rises boldly out of the sea," do we mean that the top
of it rose from the bottom ? But there is here an intusposition : the
rock commences below the water.
But if we are able to manage the first ek, he asks us what we will do
with the second. This he thinks altogether refractory. However, it
cost me no more trouble than the first. A glance discovers its bearing.
" Would Dr. R. maintain," says the writer, " that Thucydides meant
that the promontory, if attacked on the land side, must then be under-
stood as having come out of the land?" No, indeed, Dr. R. could not
make such an assertion, — nor is any such assertion needed. It is not
the promontory that comes out of the land ; it is the assault that comes
out of the land. When attacked on the land side, does not the assault
18
138 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
come from the interior of the land ? I am surprised at such an obser-
vation from such a writer. What is most strange is, that the same
question might as well be asked if apo had been used. In that case,
would the writer suppose that the promontory was represented as
coming from the land ? The promontory is not, as this writer absurdly
supposes, here represented as the point of departure, whether apo or
eh is used. The promontory is the point of arrival. The assailants
come out of the country on the land side, and direct their assault, not
from the promontory, but upon it. Never were witnesses farther from
serving the cause of the party who summoned them.
The next example is, " The road from Abdera to Ister." I say,
literally, " the road out of Abdera to Ister." The road is supposed to
commence within Abdera. Does the road out of Edinburgh to Leith
commence at the extremity of the city ? There might be as much of the
road within the city as without it. This example is clearly on my side.
But what shall 1 do with Alexander's mound ? Surely I cannot bring
it out of the continent. Yes, I will bring a machine that will force it
out of the land. Let us see the words of the author, "he resolved to
carry up a mound from the continent to the city." I say, literally,
" out of the continent." "But," says the writer, " the rampart never
had been within the continent, but merely commenced at it." I say
the rampart, according to Arrian, commenced within the continent.
The point of commencement was not without the land, but within it.
As the foundation of a house is more secure when it commences under-
ground, so a mound is more secure when it commences within the land.
I was not, it is true, present on the occasion when Alexander com-
menced this work : but I know where Arrian fixes the commencement.
We could say that the mound of Edinburgh runs out of Bank-street
into Prince's-street. The point of commencement is within the street
above, the point of ending is within the street below. Mr. Locke, in
one of his letters to Mr. Molyneux, speaks of his letters written out of
Holland. The letters were written in Holland. What sort of a critic
would he be, who should say that this implies that Mr. Locke was not
in Holland when he wrote the letters? Yet this is the principle on
which many criticise on dead languages. My opponents are in error in
their canons of criticism.
The next example is, — " a line is said to be drawn from the pole of
a circle." " It is impossible," says our author, " for a line to be within
a point." Very true ; and did not the writer see that it was equally
impossible for the whole line to be at a point ? And if its point of
commencement could be at the edge of a point, might it not also be
within the point? This is the thing said. The line is supposed to
commence within the pole. The author adds : " in other propositions
of the same book, apo is made use of to denote precisely the same idea."
Say, is made to fill the same situation. This is quite in accordance
with my doctrine. We ourselves do the same thing with from and
out of yet they do not signify precisely the same idea.
Another example is, — " She led him from the gate to the inner
apartment." " Though he came from the gate," says the writer, " he
THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 139
could never be supposed to have come out of it." Certainly not out of
the wood or metal of the gates, but as certainly out of the gates. Who
is so ignorant as not to know that gates denote, not merely the gates
strictly, but the place in which they stand, and that whole assemblies
are said to meet and sit in the gates? We speak in like manner of a
door. He stood in the door — he came out of the door — he came from
the door. But out of the door is not perfectly the same as from the
door. There is not the shadow of difficulty in such examples.
Another example brought by this writer is : " Who forming men
from the extremity of the foot, making a statue." The writer remarks,
" forming out of the extremity of the foot, would convey either no
meaning at all, or a very absurd one; ek in this passage is completely
synonymous with apo." To suppose that the upper parts of the statue
proceeded out of the foot, would indeed be absurd. And to suppose
that they proceeded from the foot, would be no less absurd. But if
the meaning is, as without doubt it is, that the foot was the point of
commencement in the making of the statue, it may as well be said that
this point was within the foot as at the foot, and that the work com-
menced out of the foot as from the foot. Nay, it seems to be the very
intention of the expression to include the foot ; for if he made the statue
only from the foot, he did not make the foot. The expression is not only
intelligible on the supposition of the peculiar meaning of ek, but is more
definite than it would have been had apo been used.
The next example alleged is from the Periegesis of Dionysius : " From
the Sicilian mountains the sea is extended far to the east." " No one,"
says the writer, " I think, will contend that ek here implies anything but
the point of departure, — certainly it was not meant to denote, that the
sea was ever within the mountains." Nothing, indeed, but the point of
departure, or rather the point of commencement. But that point is
within the mountains, either really or in the imagination. Is not the sea
toithin the mountains in every bay formed by mountains? What is
meant by "the sea within Lybia?" — an expression used by Dionysius,
a few lines above the passage quoted by this writer. But in this place
I do not understand the point of commencement, as respecting the place
where the sea touches Sicily, but the place of the spectator. When
viewed out of the Sicilian mountains, the sea of Crete extends far to the
east. On no supposition, however, has the expression any appearance of
opposition to my doctrine, with respect to the distinctive meaning of ek.
Another example is, — " Rising from her seat." " Not out of it, cer-
tainly," says the writer. Yes, out of it, certainly, say I. Thrones or chairs
of state were of such a construction, that persons were said to sit down
into them, and to come out of them, — just as we should say that a
gentleman comes out of his gig. Indeed, we might say ourselves, that
the old man rose out of his arm-chair. This is a most unfortunate
example for our author. The phrase in Matt. xx. 21, is elliptical ; and
its explication depends on a knowledge of ancient customs, which may
not now be attainable. The word thrones, or seats, or places, may be
understood, and from their construction and situation the application of
ek might have arisen. But of this I am not bound to say anything.
140 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
I observe, however, that in some way the idea of out of must have been
implied, because ek is used. Every professor of Greek, in speaking on
these phrases to his pupils, if he was not a disgrace to his chair, would
say, "literally, out of right hand (seats), and out of left hand (seats), —
on my right hand, on my left hand, are our phrases, but they are not a
translation." But did not the gentleman perceive that these phrases are
as hard to be accounted for, on the supposition that ek signifies from, as
on the supposition that it signifies out of? Could we say, " to sit from
my right hand," more than " to sit out of my right hand?" If it is said,
that the point of the sitting commences at the right hand, I reply,
that it may also commence within the right hand places. We are at
liberty to supply any word we please, for it is evident that the substantive
to which dcxion is related, is not hand. It is possible to sit within right
hand places, or right hand seats.
The phrase, from my youth, has no difficulty. The commencing
point is within his youth. It did not commence in the outer verge of
youth, or at the very edge of youth, but within it, far within it. Philo-
sophically, then, as well as literally, it is out of my youth. In like
manner, from the beginning, is literally out of the beginning. The com-
mencing point is supposed to be within the beginning, not where the
beginning ended. He knew it in the beginning. The distinctive mean-
ing of ek is visible even in these phrases. It is no proof of the contrary,
that in some of them we have no idioms to correspond to them. If all
languages had corresponding phrases perfectly alike, what would be
meant by idiom? There is not one of the phrases alleged by this
writer, in explaining which, a Greek scholar would not say " literally
out of." In some of them, our idioms may be from ; the Greek idiom
is not from, in any of them.
I have followed the writer through all his examples, and have wrested
them out of his hands. But this was more than my cause required.
There is not one of the examples that corresponds to the subject of our
debate. Our contest respects a case in which there is real motion, and
a change of position from one point to another. It respects departure
and arrival. Now there is no example to the purpose in which there is
not a change of place. The preposition ek might be used with respect
to other things in which the primary idea could not be discovered ; while,
with respect to real change of place, the distinction might be universally
preserved. But there is not one of the author's examples that respects
cases similar to the case to be illustrated. Not one of them relates to
real motion, either from or out of. These are the examples that must
decide the matter. Though I could not analyse one of the examples
brought by this writer, I would still contend that ek, as signifying point
of departure, or motion from one point to another, is more definite than
apo, since it always implies that the point of departure is tcithin the
object, and not without it. From this there not only is no exception,
but there is no colour of exception.
I conclude, then, with all the authority of demonstration, that Philip
and the eunuch were within the water, because they came out of it. I
have already observed, with respect to other examples in which baptizo
THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 141
occurs, that it will not construe with the signification pour. I observe
the same thing with respect to Acts viii. 3S : " What doth hinder me to
be baptized?" It could not be translated, " what doth hinder me to be
poured 1" It is not the baptized person, but the water, that is poured in the
observance of this ordinance by pouring. Philip baptized the eunuch. If
the word, then, signifies to pour, it was the eunuch he poured, and not the
water on the eunuch. Now the same thing may be observed, with respect
to all the passages in which this word occurs. Not one of them will con-
strue on the supposition, that it signifies to pour. The same thing is
true to a certain extent, with respect to sprinkle, and every other meaning
that has been given to this word. Some of the passages may construe
on that supposition ; but many of them will not. I need not waste time
in going over all the examples, and applying to them all the meanings
that have been given to the word in question. This has been done by
many, and must, at a glance, be obvious to all. It merely may be stated
as a canon, that whatever this word signifies with respect to the
ORDINANCE OF BAPTISM, WILL TRANSLATE IT IN EVERY PASSAGE IN WHICH
it refers to baptism. There can be no exception \M this, even though
it should be supposed to admit a different syntax, in other meanings ; yet,
as referred to the same ordinance, it must, without doubt, have the same
meaning. This canon, then, excludes the pretensions of pour and
sprinkle, and every other meaning that invention has given to it.
Immerse or dip is the only word that can stand this ordeal. This I have
shown can bear the test, not only with respect to this ordinance, but
with respect to every instance in which the word is used. Can there
be any rational doubt, then, in determining on the pretensions of the
different claimants ? Let the unlearned reader prove this, by running
over the passages in which the word is found, and applying the various
words which have been given as translations of the original.
The reason alleged, John iii. 23, for baptizing in a particular place,
implies, that baptism is immersion. " And John also was baptizing in
iEnon near to Salim, because there was much water there ; and they
came, and were baptized." But when Mr. Ewing reads this, he " can
see nothing concerning immersion." Strange, indeed, that the same
object should have an appearance so different to different eyes. Mr.
Ewing sees here, with every one else, that the Holy Spirit assigns a
reason for John's baptizing in iEnon, and that this reason is, the circum-
stance of the convenience of water. As to my purpose, I care hot
whether it is translated " much water," or " many waters." Does not
this imply, that the water was for the purpose of baptizing? The
people came there, and were baptized, because of the suitableness of the
place for baptizing. This is the meaning that undoubtedly will present
itself to every candid reader, who has no system in his mind as to the
mode of baptism. Let the language be submitted to persons utterly
unacquainted with Christianity, and among a thousand there will be
but one judgment. Instead of being difficult to be discovered here, I
venture to say, that there is scarcely any mind that has not some diffi-
culty in keeping itself from seeing it. This is the labour : this is the
difficulty. A person having made up his mind on the mode of baptism,
142 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
when he comes to this passage, may succeed in satisfying himself with
some view of the matter which has been created by his own fancy; but
I am much mistaken, if it is not always with some difficulty. That the
water was for the purpose of baptism, is to my mind the very testimony
of the Holy Spirit. When I say, that in such a district, there are many
bleach-greens, or many grist-mills, because there is there a fine river,
would not every person understand that the water was necessary for the
bleaching, and for turning the wheels of the mills? What would be
thought of the critic who should deny this, and argue that the water was
not necessary for the mills, or for the bleaching, but for the accommo-
dation of the persons who are employed about them ? Just such criticism
is it, that denies that this passage makes the water here mentioned,
necessary for baptism ; and finds out some other use for the water.
But if Mr. Ewing will not see what these words so evidently imply,
he makes ample amends by his quicksightedness in seeing here what is
not here at all. He sees here " a plain reason why two large companies,
which it was not the intention of God ever to unite together, except in
the way of gradual transference, should nevertheless have been attracted
to the neighbourhood of each other, where they might act without inter-
ference, while separately engaged in making the same religious use of
water.'' Here Mr. Ewing can see very clearly, that the water referred
to, was not for baptism, but for the Jewish purifications. He sees then
what is neither said nor suggested. It is not in evidence at all, that
Jewish purification was an object of this water. Mr. Ewing sees two
large companies. I cannot see one large company in the passage, nor
in all the history of John the Baptist. Mr. Ewing sees two companies
not uniting. I see no such thing among the Jews. Nor can I see
such a separation between the disciples of John or of Christ, and other
Jews. But that this reason exists only in Mr. Ewing's imagination, is
clear from the fact, that Jesus went every where, and every where was
attended with crowds immensely great. I care not what were the
crowds attending John; much water was not necessary for the purpose
of accommodating hearers. This invention of Mr. Ewing is nothing
better than that of his predecessors, who employed the water in giving
drink to the camels.
Mr. Ewing thinks that the expression refers not to ^Enon only, but
also to the land of Judah. If there were such a plenty of water in all
the land of Judah, it would be no loss to us. But it is as plain as lan-
guage can be, that the many icaters spoken of were in iEnon only.
Having considered the syntax and connexion of the word baptizo, I
shall next proceed to ascertain how far any light can be obtained from
the Scripture explanations of the ordinance, and the occasional allusions
to it. It is a most providential circumstance, that the mode of this
ordinance is determined not only by the word that designates it, — by
its syntax, and words in construction with it, — but also by direct expla-
nations.
Section XVI. — Evidence from the Scripture Explanations of
the Ordinance. — Examination of Rom. vi. 3. — The apostle Paul, having
THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 143
strongly and fully stated salvation to the guiltiest of men, through grace
reigning through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our
Lord, anticipates, in the beginning of the sixth chapter of his epistle to
the Romans, the objection that in every age has been made to his doc-
trine : " Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?" He refutes
this objection by the fact, that from our union with Christ by faith, we
have died along with him. And that we have died along with Christ,
he proves from our baptism. " Know ye not, that so many of us as
were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death?" Some-
thing is here supposed to be implied in baptism, of which no Christian
should be ignorant; and that thing is, that all who are baptized, are by
that ordinance exhibited as dead along with Christ. To be baptized
into Christ's death is not merely to be baptized into the faith of his
death, but of our own death with him. For if our death along v/ith
him is not implied in being baptized into his death, then this would be
no proof at all of our own death. But it is our own death with Christ,
that the apostle is proving by our baptism into Christ's death. The
third verse would be no proof of wnat is asserted in the second verse, if
our baptism into Christ does not imply our death in his death.
" Therefore we are buried with him, by baptism, into death." As in
Christ's death, we have died with him; so in baptism, we are figuratively
put into the grave along with him. Words cannot more plainly teach
anything than these words declare, that in baptism we are buried with
Christ. Baptism, then, must not only contain a likeness to burial, but
that likeness is emblematical. There may be resemblance between two
objects, and to exhibit that likeness in words is a beauty in language.
But if the likeness is merely accidental, it is only a figure of speech,
and can teach nothing. To found an argument on such ground, would
be the extravagance of fanaticism. Homer compares the falling of his
heroes headlong from their chariots, to the diving of water-fowl. But
this resemblance is merely accidental, and the victor had no intention of
giving an emblem of diving; nor could any argument be grounded on
the likeness. When a person dips in bathing, he might be said to be
buried in the water ; and there would be as good a likeness in this to
Christ's burial, even as in baptism. But the likeness is only accidental,
not emblematical. No argument could be drawn from this, to prove a
dying with Christ. This would be a metaphor. But baptism is not a
figure of speech ; it is an emblematical action. The likeness is inten-
tional,-rand the action performed is symbolical. Were it not so, the
apostle might as legitimately argue from the bath as from baptism. This
distinction is self-evident, and we shall find that it is of decisive import-
ance. From not understanding it, some have said that we have as good
a right to find in the meaning of baptism, something corresponding to
planting, as to burial. Planting is a metaphor ; there must then be a
likeness, but no emblematical import.
" That like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the
Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." Here we see
that baptism is an emblem also of the new life of the Christian. He
dies with Christ to sin; he rises with him to a new life of holiness. There
144 THE MODE OP BAPTISM.
must, then, be something in baptism, that is calculated to be an emblem
of a resurrection, as well as of a burial. Immersion is a mode that
answers both ; and immersion is the only mode that can do so.
" For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death,
we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection." In our baptism,
then, we are emblematically laid in the grave with Christ, and we also
emblematically rise with him. It is designed to point to our own
resurrection, as well as the resurrection of Christ. In baptism, we
profess our faith in the one as past, and in the other as future. What
simplicity, what beauty, what edification is contained in this ordinance!
How have all these been overwhelmed by the traditions of men ! How
clearly does this ordinance present the truth that saves the soul ! How
admirably is it calculated to recall the mind to a view of the ground of
hope, that is calculated to silence unbelief! How is it that a vile sinner
can escape the wrath of God, and obtain eternal life? How is it that
Christ's work is available for him? Why, when Christ paid our debt,
we ourselves have paid our debt, for we are one with Christ. We have
died with Christ, and have risen with Christ; Christ's death is our
death ; Christ's burial is our burial ; Christ's resurrection is our resur-
rection ; Christ's sitting in heavenly places, is our sitting in heavenly
places.
This clear testimony of the Holy Spirit, Mr. Ewing endeavours to set
aside, by a mode of criticism certainly the boldest and most violent that
I recollect ever to have seen from the pen of a man of God. The gross-
ness of the perversions of those who know not God, is not astonishing.
The extravagance even of Neologists, may be accounted for. But that
one who knows and fears God, should take such liberties with his word,
is more than I was prepared to expect. Indeed, there is nothing more
extravagant in Neologism, than in the manner in which Mr. Ewing
explains the burial of Christ. Had I been informed merely of the
result, without knowing anything of the author, I should have at once
concluded that it was the offspring of Neology. But the character of
Mr. Ewing, as well as the document itself, gives full evidence that it is
the work of sincerity. Indeed, while I must say that it is one of the
most mischievous perversions of Scripture that I have ever met from
the hand of a Christian, I am fully convinced that the author considers
that he has conferred an important benefit on the world, by his dis-
covery in criticism. His wild conclusions are speciously drawn from
premises hastily adopted, and utterly unsound.
He begins by saying, that " the great, and, as it appears to me, the
only original reason why baptism has been thought to imply immersion,
is the expression which occurs in Rom. vi. 4, and Col. ii. 12." I shall
not answer for the dead, but for my own part, the word by which the
ordinance is designated, is perfectly sufficient for me, without a particle
of evidence from any other quarter. Yet I am disposed to set as great
a value upon the evidence of these passages as any writer can do. I
value the evidence of these passages so highly, that I look on them as
perfectly decisive. They contain God's own explanation of his own
ordinance. And in this, I call upon my unlearned brethren to admire
THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 145
the Divine wisdom. They do not understand the original, and the
adoption of the words baptize and baptism can teach them nothing.
Translators, hy adopting the Greek word, have contrived to hide the
meaning from the unlearned. But the evidence of the passages in
question, cannot be hid, and it is obvious to the most unlearned. The
Spirit of God has, by this explanation, enabled them to judge for them-
selves in this matter. While the learned are fighting about baptizo, and
certain Greek prepositions, let the unlearned turn to Rom. vi. 4, and
Col. ii. 12, &c.
Mr. Ewing, speaking of the reasoning of the apostle in this passage,
says : " He then infers, that since baptism has so immediate a reference
to the death of Christ, it must, by consequence, be connected also with
his resurrection ; and that, as in the former view, it teaches the regene-
rated the abandoning of the old life of sin, so, in the latter, it equally
teaches them the habitual, increasing, and permanent pursuit and
progress of the new life of righteousness." By no means, Mr. Ewing.
This inference is not legitimate. Baptism might have a reference to
burial, without being by consequence connected with his resurrection.
Has not the Lord's supper an immediate emblematical reference to
Christ's death, without any emblematical reference to his resurrection ?
These two things are quite distinct ; and it is possible for an ordinance
to represent the one, without representing the other. The Lord's-day
is a memorial of Christ's resurrection, but is no emblem of his burial.
If there was nothing in baptism that is fitted to be an emblem of resur-
rection, baptism does not become an emblem of resurrection by conse-
quence from being an emblem of burial. But baptism is here explained
as an emblem of resurrection, as well as of burial ; there must, therefore,
be something in the emblem, that will correspond to resurrection as well
as to buriaJ. There is such a thing in immersion, but there is no such
thing in pouring ; nor is there any such thing in applying water as an
emblem of sepulchral rites. This, then, overturns Mr. Ewing's system
altogether. He confesses virtually in this quotation, that the apostle
infers that baptism is connected with the resurrection. If so, as there
is nothing in sepulchral rites, that is, in washing and embalming the
dead, that corresponds to resurrection, washing and embalming the dead
cannot be the burial referred to, — and pouring water as an emblem of
washing and embalming the dead, cannot be baptism. Nothing can be
more decisive than this. Indeed, so far from arguing that resurrection
must be implied in baptism, because that baptism represents Christ as
dead, we could not know that either death or resurrection was referred
to in that ordinance, had not inspiration given the information. It is
possible that an ordinance, performed either by immersion or pouring,
might have had no instruction in mode. The instruction might have
been all in the water. That there is any meaning in the mode, we
learn merely from the inspired explanation. Here Mr. Ewing takes the
half of his edification in this ordinance, from a source that does not
contain anything on the subject. There is nothing in the emblem,
according to his view of it, that corresponds to a new life, or resurrec-
tion. Has washing the dead any likeness to resurrection? Have
19
146 THE MODE OF BAPTISM
sepulchral rites, or embalming, any likeness to resurrection ? Mr.
Ewing was so tender in the conscience, that he scrupled to give the
name to this ordinance from immersion, if it also denoted emersion,
though these two things are necessarily connected, and both explained
as belonging to the ordinance. He does not scruple to make the em-
blem of death, an emblem of life by consequence.
" It is a common remark," says Mr. Ewing, " that the apostle is
treating in this passage, not of the form of baptism, but of its object, its
design, and its actual effects." Let its form be what it may, this pas-
sage treats of its object as known from its form. " On this account,"
says he, " many are of opinion that no inference can be drawn from his
language, concerning the form of baptism at all." No inference is
necessary. The apostle has drawn the inference himself. We could
not have drawn the inference which the apostle has drawn. Had not
the apostle explained this ordinance, we should have had no right to do
so. But even if baptism had not here been explained as a symbolical
burial, — had it been alluded to as a burial merely in metaphorical
language, it would have been equally decisive of form, though not of
meaning. If baptism is a burial merely by a figure of speech, there
must be a likeness between baptism and burial, to justify that figure.
" Perhaps," says Mr. Ewing, " it would be more correct to say, that
he is here treating of the connexion between the justification and the
sanctification of Christians." True — but he is treating of these things
as they are implied in baptism. He is treating also of more. He
incidentally treats of the resurrection of believers as implied in their
baptism. " And that in doing so," says Mr. Ewing, " he makes three
distinct allusions, to baptism, to grafting, to crucifixion." He makes no
allusion to grafting at all ; and whatever is the meaning of the phrase
planted together, it refers to baptism. Crucifixion does not allude to
baptism.
i We come now to the examination of Mr. Ewing's account of " the
scriptural meaning of ' being buried.' " Here we shall find the mysteries
of the critical art. By a learned and laborious process, Mr. Ewing
endeavours to prove that Christ was not properly buried at all ; and
that burial in Scripture is not burial, but washing or embalming the
dead. Now, on the very face of this allegation it contains its own con-
demnation. Burying, in the Scripture meaning, must be the same as
burying in the common meaning, otherwise the Scriptures are not a
revelation. This is a canon — a canon which is self-evident. If the
Scriptures do not use words in the sense in which they will be under-
stood by those who speak the language, they do not instruct, but mis-
lead. I overturn the whole system, then, by taking away the foundation
on which it rests. It assumes what is not true in any instance.
"By burying," says Mr. Ewing, "we commonly mean the lowering
of the dead body into the grave, covering it with earth, and so leaving it
under ground." This, indeed, is in general our way of burying. But
we should apply the term to burying in any way. We should say that
a person was buried in a vault, where he would lie exactly as Christ lay,
—without lowering, without a covering of mould, &c. If a person was
THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 147
deposited in all respects as Christ was deposited in the tomb, we should
say that he was buried. The difference is merely in circumstances ; the
things are essentially the same. Besides, the immersion of a believer, is
equally suited to all kinds of burial. No part of the figure depends on
any peculiarity in any age or nation.
" In Scripture," says Mr. Ewing, " to bury, not only includes all the
preparations of the body for interment, but is the expression used in
cases where our method of interment was not practised, where no inter-
ment followed at the time, and where no final interment followed at all."
Neither in Scripture nor any where else, is the word used for pre-
paratory rites alone, or where the body was not truly and properly
interred.
What does Mr. Ewing mean by final interment ? Does he mean that
Christ was not finally interred, because he rose on the third day? Then
none of us will be finally interred ; for we shall all rise again. Does he
mean that the disciples did not consider him as truly interred, and that
they designed to bury him better ? They had no such design. They
intended to cover him with more spices, but not to take him from the
place where he was buried. He was as truly buried as if he had been
in the ground till the resurrection. What does Mr. Ewing mean ?
Does he deny that Christ was truly buried ? If he was not buried, the
Scriptures are false. And if he was truly buried, though he had lain
but a moment, our baptism may be an emblem of his burial.
But it seems Mr. Ewing has Scripture proofs for the meaning that he
assigns to burial. Let us then take a look at these. In Gen. i. 26,
where the Hebrew says, they embalmed Joseph, " the Septuagint," says
Mr. Ewing, " has ethapsan, they buried him." Very true. But does this
imply, that by ethapsan the translators understood embalming? No such
thing. Had they used the word in this sense, they could not have been
understood by those who spoke the Greek language. This translation
is not a proof either that the Septuagint understood embalming to be the
meaning of burial, or that they did not understand the true meaning of
the original. It is only proof of what occurs in this translation a
thousand times, and what occasionally occurs in every translation,
namely, careless and loose rendering. Their text said, he was embalmed:
they content themselves with saying, he was buried.
" The rites of burial were," says Mr. Ewing, " from the very com-
mencement, a proof that the attending friends had ascertained the fact
of the decease." Indeed, it is obvious enough, that they would not com-
mence these rites till after the death of the person ; but these rites never
were designed as proof of this. Above all, the Scriptures do not
require such a mode of ascertaining the fact of decease. He adds, " and
that among all believers of revelation, the zeal and the solemnity with
which these rites have ever been performed, ought to be considered as
the effect, not merely of personal attachment, but of religious principle,
and particularly of the hope that God will raise the dead." Whatever
may have been the origin of these rites, nothing can be more certain
than that they were used by persons who had no notion of resurrection,
— nay, by many who denied it. Above all, these rites were not a Divine
148 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
appointment for reminding of the resurrection. Nothing can be built on
this.
" It is our happiness to know," says Mr. Ewing, " that our blessed
Saviour never was finally interred." By finally interred here, Mr. Ewing
must mean that he was raised again, and did not lie like the other dead.
For, as far as concerns our salvation and comfort, he might as well have
been kept in a common grave for the period of three days, as have been
buried in a rock. But may he not have been truly buried, though he
had risen in a moment after being deposited?
" Preparations of his body for burial were made," says Mr. Ewing,
" both by anticipation, and after the event of his death had taken place.
In both cases they are called ' his burial.' " How can Mr. Ewing say
so? The preparatory rites are never called burial. The passages
referred to have not the smallest appearance of confounding embalming
with burying. John xii. 3 represents Mary not as burying our Lord by
the act of anointing him, but as having anointed him as preparatory for
burial. She anointed him by anticipation ; but she did not bury him by
anticipation. Is it said that she buried him? The woman, Matt. xxvi. 12,
is represented as doing what she did, not to bury him, but to embalm
him, or prepare him for burial. She did to him, when alive, what is
usually done to persons after death. She embalmed him by anticipation.
Entaphiazo is used for embalming, but thapto never.
" After our Lord had given up the ghost," says Mr. Ewing, "the rites
of burial were renewed by Joseph of Arimathea, and Nicodemus." This
was strictly and properly the embalming. But is this called a burial ?
Had they done nothing but this, Jesus would not have been buried ; and
the Scriptures would not have been fulfilled. He adds, " and were
intended to have been finished by the women which came up with our
Lord," &c. These rites, then, were not finished ; and if they are burial,
Jesus was not buried.
Mr. Ewing, then, has utterly failed in his attempt to prove, that in
Scripture, preparatory rites are called burial. Not one of his examples
has a shadow of proof. I will now make some general remarks on this
strange opinion.
First, The word thapto signifies to bury, and is never applied exclu-
sively to preparatory rites. This is as true, with respect to Scripture
use, as it is with respect to the use of the classics. Mr. Ewing gives a
meaning to this word, not confirmed by use, but merely to suit his
purpose. In like manner sunthapto, the word here used, signifies to
bury one thing or person with another, — never to embalm one thing with
another. The opinion, then, does not deserve even a hearing.
Secondly, Thapto applies to all kinds of burial. No doubt, originally,
in all countries, burial was by digging a pit, and covering the dead with
the mould. But when repositories were built for the dead, or were
scooped out of rocks, the same word was still used. This, in fact, is the
case with our own word bury. We apply it to the depositing of a body
in a vault, as well as the common burial. This process in enlarging the
meaning of words, may be exemplified in a thousand words. The idea
that is common to all burying, is that of covering the dead, or sur-
THE MODE OP BAPTISM. 149
rounding them with something to keep them from violation. It is quite
a waste of time, then, for Mr. Ewing to discuss the situation and pecu-
liarities of our Lord's sepulchre. He was buried as many others are
buried ; and to this burial there is a likeness in our baptism, when we
are buried in water.
Thirdly, Burial and embalming are often distinguished as quite dif-
ferent things. Josephus speaking of the magnificent manner in which
Herod buried Aristobulus, says, "And as for his funeral, that he took
care should be very magnificent, by making great preparation of a se-
pulchre to lay his body in, and providing a great quantity of spices, and
burying many ornaments with him," &c. Here the embalming and the
burying are distinguished. It was the laying of him in the sepulchre
that was the burial. It may be noted also, that here is a magnificent
sepulchre, built as a house for the dead, in which the corpse lay on a
bier or couch ; yet the person is said to be buried. If Christ was not
truly buried, Aristobulus was not truly buried. We have here, also, not
only sunthapto, but sugkatathapto. The ornaments that were buried
together with Aristobulus, were deposited in the tomb with him, — not
washed along with him by preparatory rites. These ornaments were
buried doibn toith him, although he was laid, like Christ, in a sepulchre
above ground. Yet this is as truly burying as the common way of bury-
ing ; though the sepulchre should have been on the top of the highest
mountain in the world, the corpse is buried under a covering, as truly
as if it were deposited in the centre of the earth.
Moschus, describing a funeral, represents the burial as taking place
after all the rites were finished. Meg. i. 35.
Patroclus, notwithstanding all the embalming he received, appears to
his friend Achilles, and calls for burial. Thapte me, " bury me."
The dead body of Hector was washed regularly by the maids of Achil-
les, yet it was not buried till long after.
The passage produced by Dr. Cox from Herodotus, is most decisive.
The embalming is designated by taricheuo, the burying by thapto. But it
is useless to be particular in disproving a thing that has not even the
colour of plausibility to support it. No two things can be more distinct
than washing or embalming the dead, and burying the dead. Indeed, in
the burial of Jesus itself, these two things are distinguished. They first
rolled him in spices, which was the embalming : then they laid him in
the sepulchre, which is the burying. What is laying in a sepulchre, but
burying? But Mr. Ewing says, that the body of Christ "was never
finally deposited in the tomb ; but, after being wound up with about an
hundred pounds weight of spices," &c. No matter how short a time it
was in the tomb; in the tomb, it was buried like any other dead body.
The disciples had no intention of ever removing it from the tomb. The
women who came with more spices, had no intention to unbury it, or
take it elsewhere. To give more spices, was not to complete the bury-
ing, but to complete the embalming. Were a person in Edinburgh to visit
the grave of a friend every day, and even open both grave and coffin, to
ascertain whether the body was removed, this would not affect the bury-
ing. Why should preparatory rites be called the burying of Jesus,
150 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
seeing he was actually laid in the sepulchre? No fancy can be wilder
than this.
Fourthly, The representations of Scripture suppose Jesus to have
been truly buried. " For as Jonas was three days and three nights in
the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three
nights in the heart of the earth," Matt. xii. 40. Mr. Ewing himself al-
lows that this was fulfilled by his being laid in a sepulchre. And what
is laying in a sepulchre, but burying? Besides, this removes all Mr.
Ewing's objections with respect to the situation of the tomb of Jesus.
In this sepulchre, Jesus was in the heart of the earth. It is usual for a
ridge of rocks to have earth on the top. The Saviour was under the
earth here as well as if he had been buried in a pit at the bottom of a
valley. Again, Christ's being buried, is taught as a part of the gospel,
1 Cor. xv. 1. To allege, then, that he was not truly buried, is to call in
question the truth of the gospel. " Moreover, brethren, I declare unto
you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received,
and wherein ye stand ; by which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory
what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I de-
clared unto you first of all, that which I also received, how that Christ
died for our sins, according to the Scriptures ; and that he was buried,
and that he rose again the third day, according to the Scriptures." Here,
what was in the evangelist called three days in the heart of the earth, the
apostle calls being buried; for he is said to have risen on the third day.
The third day from what? The third day from his being buried. He
is here considered as being three days buried, for he rose on the third
day from his being buried. His resurrection here, is also opposed to
his being buried ; it must then be burying, in the proper sense of the
word.
Fifthly, The very basis of this doctrine is a mere assumption, namely,
that the dead body of Jesus was washed. It is not in evidence that he
was washed at all ; and nothing can be deduced from a mere supposi-
tion. Mr. Ewing, indeed, endeavours to supply what is wanting in the
history. He alleges, what no one will deny, that it was usual to wash
the dead. But does it follow from this, that Jesus must have been wash-
ed? We should not have known that he was embalmed, had not the
history given us the information. It is not necessary that the dead body
of Jesus should receive all the usual rites, nor any of them, except those
that prophecy foretold. The proof, then, that it was usual to wash the
dead, is no proof that Jesus was washed. Indeed, I perfectly agree with
Dr. Cox, that it is probable Jesus was not washed at all. So far as the
history goes, this is the obvious conclusion. I acknowledge, indeed,
that many things might have taken place, that are not mentioned in
the history. If any other part of Scripture said, or implied that Jesus
was washed, as well as embalmed, I would argue that the omission of
the fact in the history is no evidence to the contrary. But if the wash-
ing is not recorded, nothing can be built on it; because it might not have
taken place. The washing of Jesus is an apocryphal washing, of no more
authority than the story of Tobit and his dog, or of Bel and the Dragon.
I admit no argument but what is founded either on Scripture, or self-
THE MODE OP BAPTISM. 151
evident truth. Had Mr. Ewing been obviating a difficulty, — had he
been proving that some part of Scripture asserts that the dead body of
Jesus was washed, and had any one alleged the silence of the history
as evidence of the contrary, I would take part with Mr. Ewing. The
silence of history is not to be alleged against proof. To remove a
difficulty, it is sufficient that the thing alleged is possible ; to be an
argument, the thing alleged must be in evidence. This distinction is
self-evidently obvious, when it is considered ; yet it is a thing that lies
hid from most controversial writers.
But Mr. Ewing says, " as far as the preliminary process went, we are
told it was conducted, as the manner of the Jews was to bury." No,
Mr. Ewing, we are not told this. Had this been said, it would settle the
question ; for undoubtedly, it was the manner of the Jews to wash the
dead. But we are not told that, as far as the preliminary process
went, all the usual rites were observed. It is the winding in the linen
cloth with the spices, that is said to have been, " as the manner of the
Jews is to bury."
Mr. Ewing alleges the state of the body, covered with blood, &c, as
making washing necessary. All this, however, is no evidence that it
was done. Had it been necessary to fulfil anything in Scripture, there
is no doubt it would have been done. But there is no necessity to fulfil
national customs. The burying of Jesus with his blood unwashed,
marred not his sacrifice, nor left any prophecy unfulfilled. It was
customary for all friends to escort the body to the grave ; it was customary
to keep the corpse some time after death, yet Jesus was carried imme-
diately to the grave without any funeral pomp.
Sixthly, Is it not above all things absurd to suppose, that an ordinance
in the church of Christ should be instituted as an emblem of a thing
that is never once mentioned in his history? If the washing of the dead
body of the Saviour was a thing of so much importance, is it credible
that it would not have been mentioned ? How is it that the spices are
mentioned, yet the washing, which was the principal thing, omitted?
Seventhly, Mr. Ewing supposes, that the washing, as a part of the
embalming, is put for the whole. Why does he make such a supposition ?
Was there not a word to signify embalming? Why then use a word
that denotes only a part of the thing? Can he produce any instance to
give authority to such a supposition ? Was it usual to denote the whole
process of embalming by the word ivash 1 If not, why does Mr. Ewing
make the arbitrary supposition? Again, the washing was no part of the
embalming. It was a part of the rites of burying, and as such, when
embalming was used, washing of course first took place. But it is
evident, that the washing and the embalming were different things.
Besides, many were washed who were not embalmed. If so, it was
impossible to designate embalming by washing. This would have im-
plied, that all who were washed were embalmed ; whereas multitudes
were washed who were not embalmed. This theory, then, is not only
founded on an arbitrary supposition ; but that supposition may be proved
to be false. It is an axiom, that washing cannot stand for embalming,
if many who were washed were not embalmed.
152 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
Eighthly, This theory makes baptism an emblem of the embalming
of Christ. This is a new view of the import of baptism, that must be as
unexpected to those who baptize by pouring, as to the friends of immer-
sion. From the days of John the Baptist to the present hour, was ever
such a thing heard of but from Mr. Ewing? If this is true, there has
not been one properly baptized till the time of the author. For this
discovery, Mr. Ewing is undoubtedly entitled to a patent. Till his time,
the baptized person was never embalmed. This is a new mystery in
baptism. But how does this consist with the other mysteries that the
author has found in the same ordinance? The baptized person drinks
from the cup of nature as emblematical of a host of blessings ; and from
the same cup he is washed and embalmed for funeral. No popish ordi-
nance can vie with this ordinance of Mr. Ewing, in fertility of mysteries.
The mystery of the five wounds has as good a foundation ; but it is not
so pregnant in multifarious meaning. If all these things are contained
in baptism, it is a most heterogeneous ordinance ; and I am sure, that of
all the millions who practise it, there is not one in every thousand that
understands it. The Roman Catholic church has done much better.
She has a multitude of mysteries in baptism, but she has a corresponding
multitude of emblems. The oil, and the spittle, and the breathing, &c.
&c, entitle her to enlarge the meaning of her ordinance. But Mr. Ewing,
by the management of one handful of water, contrives to couch the most
discordant meanings.
But if washing stands for embalming as a part for the whole, then it
cannot, in this situation, stand simply for itself, without the other parts
of the process of embalming. In baptism, the water must signify not
washing only, nor chiefly, but also and especially the spices, &c. The
principal part of the mystery must be in the anointing with oil, and the
use of the spices, for these were the principal things in the embalming.
Now, Mr. Ewing overlooks all but the washing; which is only the
previous step to the embalming. He first makes the embalming the
principal thing, that he may have some plausible foundation for getting
rid of true burying, by substituting the embalming in its place. Then,
when this is effected, as he has no need of embalming, but finds it rather
cumbersome, he contrives to dismiss it, retaining only the part that fits
him. Washing is brought in only in the right of embalming ; but when-
ever it pops its head into this situation, it takes care to displace its
principal. Accordingly, washing is the only thing that is made emblem-
atical. The oil and spices have no mystery. Is not this unjust to the
chief parts of the embalming ? Surely the anointing ought to have a
place in baptism, if baptism is an emblem of embalming. Spices also
cannot be dispensed with. Even if they are not used, as they are the
chief thing in embalming, they must be chiefly considered in baptism,
which is an emblem of embalming. The Church of Rome will thank
Mr. Ewing for the oil, which he does not seem forward to use ; but the
spices, by a very little ingenuity, might serve his system effectually. As
embalming preserves the body from putrefaction, so baptism may not
only be an emblem of the washing of a corpse, but of the resurrection.
Ninthly, Mr. Ewing complains of the want of likeness between Christ's
THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 153
burial and immersion ; yet he makes a handful of water an emblem not
only of washing a corpse, but of the whole rites of embalming. Surely
there can be nothing more unlike burial rites, than the popping of a
handful of water into the face of an infant. But the complaint of want
of likeness in immersion to the burial and resurrection of Christ, is quite
unreasonable. It is as striking as any emblem can be. It ought, how-
ever, to be remarked, that the ordinance is merely emblematical — not
dramatic. In the former, there is no need of that exact and minute
likeness that the latter requires. The former could not be known to be
a likeness of something else, if it were not explained to be such. The
latter is, by its very appearance, known to be an emblem. The sacrifices
of the Jewish law could not, from mere external appearance, have been
known to represent the death of Christ. But the dramatic burying of
Charles V. declared its own object.
Let it be considered also, that in the emblem of a burial, there is no
need of a likeness in the laying down of the body of the person bap-
tized. The emblem is in the actual state of the body as being covered
with the water. The likeness to the resurrection consists not in the
very manner of being taken up out of the water, but in the rising itself.
Nothing could afford a resemblance of the way of the raising of the
dead. There was no likeness between the way of killing the sacrifice
and the manner of Christ's death. There was no likeness between the
manner in which Jonah was swallowed by the whale, and again thrown
out, to the way in which Christ was carried into the tomb, and in which
he came out of the tomb ; yet Jonah in the whale's belly was an emblem
of Christ as being three days in the heart of the earth. Surely Mr.
Ewing should have attended more to the nature of an emblem, and have
distinguished what is the point of resemblance, before he ventured to
question the likeness between the baptism of believers and the burial of
Christ, which is asserted by the Holy Spirit. If the Baptists set any
value on the manner of putting the body of the baptized person under
water, in my opinion they come under the same censure. Mr. Ewing's
whole dissertation on the Jewish manner of burying the distinguished
dead, has no bearing on the subject. Between immersion and burying
in any manner, there is a likeness. It is nothing to our purpose to
make that likeness dramatic.
Mr. Ewing is of opinion, that verse 5 does not refer to baptism. But
whatever is the true meaning of the word translated " planted together,"
it is evident, that it must have its reference to baptism. It is a distinct
figure, and the manner of introducing it, evidently shows that it, equally
with burying, refers to baptism. " For if we have been planted together
in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resur-
rection." The conditional statement is here evidently founded on what
precedes. " If we have been planted," &c. He does not pass on to a
new argument to show that we are dead with Christ, leaving the subject
of baptism ; but having shown the burial of the Christian in baptism,
he goes on to show that resurrection is equally important. If we have
been buried with Christ, so shall we rise with him. Had he quitted
the subject of baptism, and introduced a new argument, which had no
20
154 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
reference to baptism, he would not have stated it conditionally. When
he says, " For if we have been planted," it is implied that he had been
saying something expressing or implying that they had been planted.
Whatever is the meaning of sumphutoi, it must have a reference to
baptism.
Mr. Ewing thinks that sumphntoi here signifies grafted, and of course
can have no likeness to baptism. On the contrary, for this very reason
I say that it cannot signify grafting, because it is expressly said, that we
have been sumphntoi in the likeness of Christ's death. If, then, there is
in grafting no likeness to death, the word cannot mean grafting. What-
ever is the meaning of sumphutoi, it must suit the supposition of a
likeness to death. Even if this word had no reference to baptism, it
must refer to a likeness of death. We have been made sumphutoi in the
likeness of his death.
But independently of the connexion altogether, I maintain that the
word does not signify grafted. Mr. Ewing produces no authority from
use to establish this meaning. When it refers to trees, it does not desig-
nate the operation of grafting, or of inserting a part of one into another ;
but to the planting of trees in the same bed. The trees of a grove are
sumphutoi. Grafting is, indeed, one of the figures employed to repre-
sent the union of Christ and his people, and some excellent observations
on this subject are contained in Mr. Ewing's dissertation on this verse.
But they have no application to this subject. A house, a temple, the
human body, the husband and wife, are all figures of this union. But
they are not the figures used here. No more is grafting. It is a fine
figure in its own place ; but it is no likeness to death, and therefore has
nothing to do with baptism. If the allusion is here to planting, as it is
expressly said to have a likeness to death, and refers to baptism, the
resemblance must be found in the burying of the roots of the plants.
The likeness is sufficiently obvious to justify a metaphor.
Mr. Ewing's attempt, then, to find in pouring a handful of water on
the face, a likeness to the burial of Christ, has utterly failed. It is as
forced as anything that the wildest imagination ever conceived. Nothing
but the necessity of a favourite system could send a man on such a
perilous expedition. It is most astonishing, that any man who allows
that Jesus Christ lay three days in the tomb, should attempt to find his
burial in the washing or embalming of his body.
This attempt of Mr. Ewing to force a likeness between baptism and
the rites of embalming, and to make the burial of Christ, not his being
laid in the sepulchre, but his being washed as a corpse, is of great
importance as a document on this subject. It testifies in the strongest
manner, that in Mr. Ewing's judgment, the evidence from Rom. vi. 3,
and Col. ii. 12, that baptism contains a likeness to burial, is so obvious,
that he could see no way to explain these passages otherwise. Had any
other explanation seemed to him possible, certainly he would not have
had recourse to so wild a thought, as that Christ's burial was not his
interment, and that bury in the Scriptures relates to rites preparatory to
interment. It is self-evident, that no man would have fled to such a
refuge, who could have found any other. I appeal to common sense for
THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 155
the truth of this observation. Mr. Ewing not only had no temptation
to find a likeness to burial in these passages, but his cause would have
been much better served, could he have proved that these passages con-
tain no such likness. Since, then, in such circumstances he has confessed
a likeness, and since to divert this likeness to another object, he was
obliged to have recourse to so violent an expedient, we have a right to
say, not only that his judgment is in favour of likeness, but that all his
ingenuity could not explain the passages in a manner satisfactory to
himself, without the supposition of likeness.
But what Mr. Ewing's intrepidity and ingenuity did not attempt, Dr.
Wardlaw has undertaken. He explains the passages on the supposition
that baptism has no likeness to burial in any sense. Now, in this we
have Dr. Wardlaw's judgment virtually, but clearly pronounced, that
Mr. Ewing's attempt is a failure. We have a right then to say, that
Mr. Ewing's explanation of these passages is unsatisfactory to the most
sagacious of his own party. But Dr. Wardlaw's opinion of the insuffi-
ciency of Mr. Ewing's explanation, has the more value, when it is
considered, that by refusing to adopt it, he is obliged to have recourse
to an expedient as violent, and as wild as that of Mr. Ewing itself. To
assert, that there is here no likeness implied between baptism and burial,
does as great violence to language as can easily be conceived. If, there-
fore, Dr. Wardlaw is so convinced of the insufficiency of Mr. Ewing's
explanation, that he ventures on one so extravagant, his opinion of Mr.
Ewing's failure is entitled to the greater weight. It was his interest to
coincide with Mr. Ewing's explanation, had he conceived that it was at
all tenable. He would not have ventured to come ashore upon a plank,
had he not found Mr. Ewing's leaky boat sinking under him. Dr.
Wardlaw complains of the mode of controversy that argues from
discrepancies between those on the same side. I admit that the argu-
ment may be abused. But if he complain of my argument on this
point, he does not see its bearing. Persons on the same side of a con-
troversy, may differ with respect to the explanation of many passages,
without any detriment to their common cause. But the difference here
is about a thing which must in itself be obvious, namely, whether a
certain phrase implies the likeness of one thing to another. About this
there cannot in reality be a ground for controversy among those who
understand the words.
The difference, also, is of such a nature, that each must look on the
other as giving up the common cause. As Mr. Ewing is so fully con-
vinced that it is impossible to deface the likeness, he must look upon
those who do not agree with him in finding it in preparatory rites, as
giving up the passage to his opponents. As Dr. Wardlaw cannot
explain the passages on the supposition of likeness without admitting
immersion, he must look upon those who admit likeness, as yielding the
doctrine in debate. On the other hand, we may differ about the mean-
ing of sumphutoi, without the least danger to our common cause. One
may say, it is "planted together" another, that it is "joined together,"
without overturning the common doctrine. My argument is founded,
also, on the extravagancies to which each of these writers is obliged to
156 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
have recourse, in order to defend his opinion. Each of them must have
strong reason of dissatisfaction with the opinion of the other, when,
rather than embrace it, he has recourse to an opposite point of extrava-
gance. One sees likeness so clearly, that rather than deny it, he
endeavours to find it where sobriety of judgment never could look for
it. The other sees the extravagance of this attempt so clearly, that, rather
than adopt it, he will deny that the passages contain any likeness.
But let us now take a glance at the process of ejectment by which
Dr. Wardlaw has dispossessed likeness out of these passages. " To be
1 baptized into Christ,' " says he, " is to be baptized into the faith of him
as the Messiah," &c. And again, " the simple meaning of the expres-
sion evidently is, that by being baptized into the faith of his death, as
the death of our surety and substitute, we become partakers with him in
it." Now, what is here said to be evidently the simple meaning of this
expression, is evidently not its meaning at all. We do not become par-
takers in the death of Christ, by being baptized into the faith of his
death. We become partakers in the death of Christ, by faith, before
baptism, and without baptism ; and should have been equally so, had
baptism never been instituted. In baptism, this participation with
Christ is exhibited in figure, just as we are said to wash away our sins
in baptism. Sins are washed away by faith in the blood of Christ, but
they are symbolically washed away in baptism. Just so we become
partakers in the death of Christ the moment we believe ; in baptism,
this participation is exhibited by a symbol.
Dr. Wardlaw, by this mode of interpretation, considers faith in Christ's
death, and baptism into his death, as equivalent expressions. But to be
" baptized into his death," is more than to " believe in his death."
Baptism into his death, not only imports that we believe in him as our
substitute, but marks our death in his death. To be baptized into his
death, is the same as to be buried into death. In reality, we die with
Christ the moment we believe ; but this is not expressed by the phrase,
faith in Christ's death. It is learned from other parts of the Scriptures.
Now, herein lies the importance of the mode of baptism. It marks, in a
figure, the way in which we become partakers in the benefits of Christ's
death. This is by our being, by a Divine constitution, one with him.
His death is a proper atonement for us, because we die with him, so
that in reality his death is ours. This is not necessary in all cases of
substitution. To have a debt discharged by another, there is no neces-
sity to become one with him. But it is not so in crime. Justice is
not satisfied, except the criminal himself suffers ; and by the Divine
constitution, that makes all believers one with Christ, they are all con-
sidered as having died with him. The criminals have suffered, since he
who suffered was one with them. Baptism, then, marks this circum-
stance. It shows, in a figure, that union with Christ in his death, burial,
and resurrection, which we have by faith.
According to Dr. Wardlavv's way of explaining these passages, there
was no occasion to mention baptism at all. If the apostle is speaking of
the real oneness with Christ, without considering it as exhibited in a
figure, he might as well have said, " Know ye not, that as many as have
THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 157
believed in Christ's death, have died along with him ?" This would
express all that Dr. Wardlaw takes out of the passage : and it would
express it definitely. Why, then, does the apostle bring in baptism at
all? Ao-ain, if baptism implies burial only as implying faith in Christ's
death, then the Lord's supper, or anything that implies faith, might
have been referred to on this occasion, as well as baptism. We might
as well say that we are buried by the Lord's supper as buried by
baptism. We might as well say that we are crucified by baptism.
But such phraseology is never used in the Scriptures. The only reason,
then, that baptism is here brought forward at all, must be that it is a
figure of burial.
That baptism has a likeness to death, is put beyond question in this
passage, from the phrase, buried with him through baptism into death.
Here is a burial by or through the means of baptism. What buries us
into death? It is baptism. But the death into which baptism buries
us, must be a figurative death. It is faith that buries us truly into
Christ's death. But the death and burial here spoken of, are effected,
not by faith, but by baptism. This phrase refutes Dr. Wardlaw's asser-
tion, that though a likeness might be fancied between immersion and
burial, no likeness to death can be found in it. The phrase, buried by
baptism into death, imports that we die with Christ in baptism, as well as
we are buried with him. Nay, it is by burial we die. We are supposed
to be buried into death. And the figure is well fitted for this purpose.
To immerse a living man, affords an emblem of death as well as of
burial. The baptized person dies under the water, and for a moment
lies buried with Christ. Christ's own death was spoken of under the
figure of a baptism.
Dr. Wardlaw, indeed, asserts that the phrase, buried with him by
baptism into his death, merely directs the attention to that into which they
were baptized. But the passage says nothing of the doctrine into which
they were baptized, in any other way than as it is contained in the
figure. As I observed before, it is by baptism, and not by faith, they
are here said to be buried ; and, therefore, the burial must be a figura-
tive burial. The phrase in Col. ii. 12, is different, but equally express.
It is buried with him in baptism. This burial, then, takes place, not in
believing, but in baptism. We are buried with him when we are bap-
tized, and by the act of baptizing. The two expressions, when taken
together, make the thing more definite. One of them expresses that it
is in baptism that we are buried ; the other, that it is by baptism that
we are buried.
Dr. Wardlaw speaks of this passage, as containing " a beautiful illus-
tration of the spiritual connexion of believers with Christ." Now, how is
this an illustration, if it is not by continuing a likeness to the thing
illustrated ? Is it not absurd to speak of illustrating by things in which
there is no resemblance to the principal object? Dr. Wardlaw cannot
consistently look on this as an illustration. He sets out with supposing,
that the passage refers merely to the participation that believers have in
Christ's death, burial, and resurrection, by faith, without any likeness to
these things in baptism. Now, if this is the case, death, burial, and
158 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
resurrection, are here not an illustration of connexion, but an exemplifi-
cation of connexion. By calling these things an illustration, the author
gives up his doctrine. Indeed, these things are so obviously an illustra-
tion— the passage so evidenly considers death, burial, and resurrection,
as figurative, that it is not easy even for the most determined enemy of
immersion, to speak much about the passage, without using language
that admits this.
" To be dead with Christ," says Dr. Wardlaw, " and to be buried with
Christ, are the same thing." Certainly not. Death is different from
burial, though burial includes death. Were they not different, they
would not both have been mentioned here. It is a distinct part of the
gospel testimony, that Christ was buried. His burial was as distinct
from his death, as his resurrection was.
" The latter of the two phrases," says Dr. Wardlaw, " appears to be
used in the fourth verse, chiefly for the sake of completing the apostle's
figure" This assertion is most injurious to the language of the Holy
Spirit, and totally unfounded in the lawful use of figures. I am bold to
assert, that there cannot be an instance of what the author asserts, with-
out a serious trespass of the laws of figurative language. It is true,
indeed, that in allegory there may be some points in the figure which
have nothing to correspond to them in the thing illustrated, because the
unity of the resembling object cannot be broken. But to add burial to
death, is to add one figure to another without any necessity. If, then,
there is no distinct meaning in burial, to add it to death is vicious in
taste, and childish in argument. The only reason why burial is men-
tioned, must be that it has a distinct meaning. To suppose that the
apostle would bring it in merely for the purpose of stringing one figure
to another, is not only an affront to the Holy Spirit, but would be an
impeachment of the good sense of the apostle, if he had written without
inspiration. Plato, indeed, goes over the whole human body, and brings
out of it a chain of metaphors. He makes the head a citadel, the
neck an isthmus, &c. This is sufficiently childish, but it is manly
compared with what the apostle is supposed to do. Plato gives some
meaning to each of his figures ; but the apostle strings one figure to
another, not for the sake of additional illustration, but out of the puerile
conceit of completing his series of figures. It would have been an
improvement, had he inserted the embalming between death and the
burial, and added the funeral procession to the series.
But what shall we say of the apostle's figure ? Is there, then, a
figure in the apostle's language ? Are this death, burial, and resurrec-
tion figurative ? If the death, burial, and resurrection in baptism are
figurative, they must have a likeness. Is there any figurative death
without a likeness'' There is a common proverb, that murder will
never lie. The murderer will sometimes discover himself even by
talking in his sleep. Dr. Wardlaw has murdered this passage most
barbarously, and it is no wonder if he informs against himself. While
he has assassinated the likeness in baptism to death, burial, and resur-
rection, he speaks of illustration, figure, and resemblance.
" As it was necessary," says Dr. Wardlaw, " in order to Christ's
THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 159
rising, that he should be laid in the grave ; so in the figure, it is neces-
sary that we should be viewed as buried icith him, in order to our rising
with him to newness of life." Certainly, it is necessary that we should
be viewed in the figure of baptism as buried with Christ. But if the
author means that we are buried with Christ by faith in him as a sub-
stitute merely by a mode of speaking, it is a most serious error. Does
the author say that it is in a figurative way of speaking that the believer
dies with Christ? If he does, he has a very inadequate view of the be-
liever's oneness with Christ. The believer is one with Christ, not by a
peculiar mode of speaking, or a particular way of viewing the subject,
but by a real union. He is one with Christ as truly as he is one with
Adam. He dies with Christ as truly a? he fell with Adam. Christ's
work is his, as truly as Adam's sin is his. By a Divine constitution all
Adam's posterity are one in him, and so his first sin is really and truly
theirs. By a similar Divine constitution all Christ's people are one with
him, and his work is as really theirs, as if they had themselves performed
it. When it is said that Christians have died with Christ by faith, there
is no more figure than when it is said that they have died in Adam, or
that they shall die themselves.
But this view of the subject overturns the apostle's reasoning alto-
gether. Dr. Wardlaw understands the apostle as speaking of the con-
nexion that believers have with Christ by faith ; and that they are here
said to be dead with him, buried with him, and to be risen with him,
not by a likeness to these things in baptism, but merely by faith. Now,
if he ascribes to them this death, burial, and resurrection, as a mode of
viewing them, or as a figurative way of speaking, he wrests the apostle's
argument out of his hands. If this death is the death by faith, and yet
nothing but a figure, then our security against living in sin, according
to the apostle, is nothing but a figure. A figurative death is no security
against sin. An actor will die on the stage to-night, and act to-morrow.
If it is only in a certain way of speaking that we rise with Christ by
faith, then there is from that figurative resurrection no security of a holy
life. The spirit of the apostle's reasoning on this verse would be,
" How can they, who are said by a figure to be dead to sin, live any
longer therein? Know ye not that as many of us as have believed on
Christ, are figuratively viewed as having died with him ?" This figure
would be a weak security against living in sin. It must be a real death
that will secure against sin. Now, how different is the apostle's argu-
ment, on our view! "How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any
longer therein ?" This must be real death, otherwise there is no argu-
ment. How then are we dead ? By faith in Christ we are dead. But
in baptism this truth is exhibited in figure, " Know ye not that so
many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his
death?" To be baptized into Jesus Christ imports the being baptized
into the faith of his death as our substitute ; but to be baptized into his
death imports, that by baptism we are exhibited as dying along with
him. The death in baptism is a figurative death, founded on the real
death by faith. If baptized into his death does not import our death
with Christ, this verse is not proof of what is asserted in the former ;
160 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
and if baptism is no figurative burial, it is no proof of death, and there-
fore would be only an incumbrance in this place. The Christian has a
real death, burial, and resurrection with Christ by faith. He has all
these also in baptism by figure. Baptism is a proof of death, because
it has no meaning otherwise. Hence it is used as an argument here ;
and hence the great importance of understanding the import of baptism.
It gives, by a striking figure, a conception of the union of believers with
Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection, that has escaped, we see,
the most sagacious Christians who are ignorant of the ordinance.
" The simple meaning," says Dr. Wardlaw, " is this : since, in our
being baptized into Jesus Christ, we were baptized into his death, —
into the faith of his death as the death of a surety ; we may be con-
sidered as, by faith, partaking with him in his death." I reply, this
partaking is a real — not a figurative partaking. If baptism is not a
figure of this, there was no occasion to allude to it at all. The author
continues : " as buried with him ; and that with the special end of our
rising with him, in a spiritual resemblance of his resurrection, and
' walking in newness of life.' " But does not Dr. Wardlaw see that we
are not here said to be buried ivith him by faith, but buried with him by
baptism into death 1 This burial is not merely a burial by faith, but a
burial by baptism. The language imports, also, that baptism has a
reference both to Christ's resurrection, and our new life. " We are
buried with him by baptism into death ; that like as Christ was raised
up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should
walk in newness of life." This is stated as the end of baptism — not as
the end of faith. As baptism does not effect these things, it must be
viewed as a figure. Baptism makes us die, buries us, raises us, only in
figure ; therefore as we are said to die, to be buried, and to rise in
baptism, baptism must contain a likeness to these things. It is not said
that we are buried by faith, that we may rise, &c. ; but that we are buried
by baptism into death, that we may rise, &c. All these things are
connected with baptism. But except as a likeness or figure, it has no
connexion with them at all. Any other ordinance might have been
equally mentioned. Rather, there was no need for the mention of any
ordinance, on the supposition that there is no likeness.
But that baptism contains a likeness to death, is in this passage
expressly asserted : " for if we have been planted together, or united,
with him in the likeness of his death." Here we see that this death is a
symbolical death. It is a likeness to death. Now, the participation in
Christ's death, that the believer has by faith, is not a likeness to death,
but a real death. It is, by the Divine constitution of the union that
subsists between Christ and his people, his own death. How, then, is
there in baptism a likeness to death, if that ordinance is not by immer-
sion ? Our future resurrection is also figured in baptism : " we shall be
also in the likeness of his resurrection." In Col. ii. 12, also, we are
said to be risen with Christ : " Buried with him in baptism ; wherein, or
in which, also ye are risen with him." Dr. Wardlaw asks, How is it
we are said to be "risen with him?" Undoubtedly through faith.
Without this there is no rising to new life, nor will there be to glory. But
THE MODE OP BAPTISM. 161
this resurrection is notwithstanding said here to be in baptism. It must
then be in figure. Dr. Wardlaw supposes that these things are ascribed
to baptism ; "because it was the first public declaration of the faith of
the converts." But baptism is not necessarily a public declaration of
faith ; nor is it necessarily the first public declaration. There may be
many instances in which a public declaration of faith is made, before
there is any opportunity of being baptized. Besides, this is an apocry-
phal reason. The Scriptures do not assign it; and as a matter of fact,
it is no more connected with salvation than the Lord's supper. It is
not in baptism, nor by means of baptism, that we die with Christ really,
or are made spiritually alive. This death and this life take place
before baptism. Baptism, then, can have these things ascribed to it
only in figure. "It is on the same principle," says Dr. Wardlaw, "that
they are spoken of as in baptism 'washing away their sins.'" All these
things are doubtless spoken on the same principle. But that principle
is, that baptism is a figure. Baptism washes away sins, not because it
is the first ordinance, but because it is an emblematical washing of the
body with water. Does not Dr. Wardlaw hold, that baptism is an
emblem of washing away sin ? How then does he explain the phrase,
icashing aioay sin in baptism, on the principle of baptism being the firsi
ordinance ? We wash away sins in baptism, just as we eat the flesh of
Jesus in the Lord's supper. " The cup of blessing which we bless, is it
not the communion of the blood of Christ ? The bread which we break,
is it not the communion of the body of Christ ?" How is the cup the com-
munion of Christ's blood? How is the bread the communion of his body?
In figure. And when the figure is observed in faith, the real commu-
nion is effected. Just so baptism washes away sin. Just so in baptism
we die, we are buried, and we rise. But the truth of the emblem is
effected, not by baptism in any sense, but. by faith of the operation of
God. It is absurd and ridiculous to suppose, that an ordinance can
wash away sin in any other than a figurative sense. Was it not in this
way that Jewish rites were said to make an atonement and to
cleanse from sin? The first ordinance observed, has no more to do
with these things than the last. The death, burial, and resurrection,
which are ascribed to baptism, take place in baptism, and by means of
baptism. The washing away of sins, ascribed to baptism, is effected by
baptism. This washing, this death, this burial, and this resurrection,
then, cannot be the washing, death, burial, and resurrection, which are
effected by faith, and which take place before baptism. If the washing
away of sins, the death, burial, and resurrection, ascribed to baptism,
were effected previously, and by other means, the Scriptures are not
true, that speak of them as effected in baptism, and by baptism. The
reality has already taken place, but it is represented in figure as taking
place in the ordinance, and by means of the ordinance.
" In Rom. vi." says Dr. Wardlaw, " the language of the whole passage
is figurative." And what suppose it were figurative? Would this
imply that there is no likeness? When death, burial, and resurrection,
are used figuratively, they must of necessity have a likeness. Will
Dr. Wardlaw show what kind of figure he supposes to exist here?
21
162 THE MODE OP BAPTISM.
Will he show any figure that will justify the ascription of the washing
away of sin, of death, burial, and resurrection to an ordinance, because
it is the first ordinance observed? This figure he will look for in vain,
either in the writings of rhetoricians, or the practice of any language.
The principle on which I hold that these things are ascribed to bap-
tism, I have verified by example, and justified on principle. But will
Dr. Wardlaw recollect, that this death, burial, and resurrection, he has,
in setting out, considered as effected by faith ? He cannot, then, speak
consistently of this language as figurative. But though he talks of the
simple meaning of the passage, there is evidently a jumble in bis own
conceptions of this meaning. There never was a paragraph farther
from simplicity, than that which he has employed to show the simple
meaning of Rom. vi. 1.
The fact, however, is, that in the expression wash away si?i by bap-
tism, death, burial, and resurrection in baptism, there is no figure. It
is a figurative action, not a figurative expression. A symbol is not a
figure of speech. And I have shown, that as Dr. Wardlaw has in the
commencement explained death, burial, and resurrection, as the death,
burial, and resurrection which we have by faith in Christ, dying as
our surety, to speak of these things now as figurative language, is to
overturn the apostle's argument, and to deny real union with Christ in
his work. We are not one with him by a Divine constitution, as we
are one with Adam, but merely one with him in a figurative way of
speaking. Dr. Wardlaw, then, ejects immersion out of Rom. vi. only
by virtually overturning the Gospel, or denying real oneness with Christ.
" The same principle of interpretation," says Dr. Wardlaw, " accord-
ing to which the expression ' buried with Christ ' is explained, as referring
to the representation of interment by the immersion of the body under
water, should lead us also to understand the phrase which immediately
follows, 'planted together in the likeness of his death,' as referring to an
emblematic representation of planting, which, accordingly, some have
stretched their fancy to make out." If the word sumphutoi is to be
translated planted together, there must indeed be a likeness between
baptism and planting ; and it requires no stretch of fancy to discover
a likeness between the burying of the roots of plants and immersion in
water. But even on this supposition, the word is metaphorical, and
while it equally with a symbolical action requires likeness, it does not
imply that baptism is an emblem of planting. Let Dr. Wardlaw con-
sider the difference between a figurative word and a figurative action,
and he will withdraw this objection. Baptism is here explained as a
symbolical action, representing death, burial, and resurrection. The
likeness to planting is illustrative, not symbolical. The phrase, planting
together, proves the mode of baptism ; but it does not imply that there
is in it anything emblematic of planting. Dr. Wardlaw continues,
" or the phrase, crucified with him, to some similar exhibition of cruci-
fixion." But does not Dr. Wardlaw perceive that we are not said to be
crucified with Christ in baptism? We are indeed crucified with him —
really and truly crucified with him — not in baptism, but by faith in
his cross. We were nailed to the tree, when he was nailed, because by
THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 163
the Divine constitution we are one with him. But, according to Dr.
Wardlaw's explanation of this passage, we might as well be said to be
crucified in baptism, as buried in baptism. If there is no allusion to
burial in baptism, more than to crucifixion, why are we not said to be
crucified in baptism ? If we are really crucified with him by faith in
his cross, why might we not, on Dr. Wardlaw's principle, be said to be
crucified in baptism, and by means of baptism, because it is the first
ordinance in which we profess faith in the cross of Christ? But there
is no such absurdity of expression in the Scriptures.
After all the labours of Mr. Ewing and Dr. Wardlaw on this passage,
I could safely rest my cause on a candid reading of it by the most
unlettered good sense. To a reflecting mind, nothing can more strongly
prove the impossibility of diverting these words from giving their testi-
mony in favour of immersion, than that one of these learned and inge-
nious writers could find no other way to effect his purpose, but by
forcing burial to denote embalming or washing the dead ; and the other
by denying that the passage implies any likeness between baptism and
burial. These extravagances are so enormous, that every sober mind
may see that the cause that requires them is desperate. I ask any man
who fears God and trembles at his word, is Christ's burial merely the
washing of his corpse, and not his being laid in the sepulchre? I ask,
does the phrase " buried with baptism by death" import no likeness be-
tween baptism and burial ?
Dr. Wardlaw observes, " according to our Baptist brethren, tvashing
or cleansing, so far from being the exclusive, is not even the principal,
but only a secondary meaning of the rite." In this he is mistaken.
Death, burial, and resurrection, we do not consider as the primary mean-
ing of baptism ; and washing away sin, as a secondary meaning. It
takes both together to make one meaning. The ordinance has one
meaning only. It not only signifies washing away sin through faith in
the blood of Christ, but denotes that such sins are washed away by our
fellowship with him in his death. Washing away of sin is the thing
which it always signifies : but this is not the whole of its meaning. If.
is then to no purpose that Dr. Wardlaw insists that sprinkling and
pouring may be an emblem of cleansing. They are no emblems of death,
burial, and resurrection, which are figured in baptism.
Another passage that favours our view of the mode and import of
baptism, is 1 Cor. xv. 29. " Else what shall they do which are baptized
for the dead, if the dead rise not at all ? Why are they then baptized
for the dead?" There must be an argument here, and this object of
baptism must be a scriptural object, otherwise it could not be an argu-
ment. Indeed, though to us the passage may be difficult from difference
of circumstances with respect to those immediately addressed, yet it is
evident that the apostle considers the argument as very obvious and con-
vincing. Now, to consider the expression to be a reference to the mode
and import of baptism, as implying an emblem of the resurrection of
believers, will afford a natural meaning to the words, and an important
argument to the apostle. Baptism is an ordinance that represents our
burial and resurrection with Christ. We are baptized, hi the hope that
164 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
our dead bodies shall rise from the grave. Now, if there is no resurrec-
tion, why are we baptized? On that supposition, there is no meaning
in baptism. It is absurd for any to be baptized, baptism being a figure
of a resurrection, if they do not believe in a resurrection. Heb. x. 22,
is on both sides allowed to have a reference to baptism ; and to me it
appears evident, that the whole body was covered with water. " Let us
draw near with a true heart, in full assurance of faith, having our hearts
sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure
water." Here the heart is said to be sprinkled in allusion to the appli-
cation of the blood of the sacrifices ; and the body, in allusion to the
bathings under the law, is said to be washed in pure water, referring to
the ordinance of baptism. Now, the pouring of a little water in the face
is not a washing of the body. I admit, that sprinkling a little water on
any part of the body might be an emblem of purification ; but this would
not be called a washing of the body. The passage which Mr. Ewing
brings to justify his view of this verse, is not parallel. " For, in that
she hath poured this ointment on my body, she did it for my burial,"
Matt. xxvi. 12. " This instance," says Mr. Ewing, " of calling what was
poured on the head, a pouring on the body, illustrates what is said of
baptism which is in itself a pouring on the face only, but which, being
a figure of washing, is called a washing of the body." Our Lord's
expression is quite literal, and has no emblem. The smallest quantity
of water poured on any part of the body, is as truly poured on the body
as if the whole body was covered. Water is literally poured on the
body, if poured on any part of the body. But when the body is said to
be washed, it implies that the whole body is washed. Washing a part
of the body, is not washing the body. Let us have an example in which
the pouring of a little water on a part of an object, is called the washing
of the object. The bodies of the priests were washed on entering on
their office. Shall we say that this may have been the pouring of a
little water on their head ? Though I do not agree with Dr. Campbell,
that louo cannot be applied to a part, yet it is so generally appropriated
to the bathing of the whole body, that in medical use it is employed with-
out a regimen in that sense. If any part is not to be bathed, it must be
expressly excepted, as except the head.
" Except a man be born of water and the Spirit," John iii. 5, is
another expression which is admitted to refer to baptism ; and has its
explanation most intelligibly in emersion out of the water in that ordi-
nance. To emerge out of the water, is like a birth; and to be born of wa-
ter, as distinguished from being born of the Spirit, is to be born of the truth
represented by the water. We are regenerated both by the word and
Spirit. We are born into the kingdom of God by the agency of his
Spirit, through the belief of the word that testifies the death, burial, and
resurrection of Christ, and our death, burial, and resurrection with him.
Christ, therefore, is said to have given himself for his church, that he
might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of icatcr by the word,
Ephes. v. 26. The washing of water is by the word, which is figura-
tively done in baptism. In like manner, we are said to be saved "'by
the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost," Tit. iii. 5.
THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 165
We are also said to be " washed and sanctified," 1 Cor. vi. 11, in reference
to the cleansing from sin by faith in the blood of Christ, as well as to
the renewing of our hearts by the Holy Spirit.
Section XVII. — Strictures on Mr. Ewing's Miscellaneous Re-
marks on the Hypothesis of Immersion. — I have, in a great measure,
anticipated anything that I judge necessary on Mr. Ewing's Miscellaneous
Remarks on the Hypothesis of Immersion. I cannot, however, dismiss the
subject without more expressly entering my protest against the grounds of
his reasoning in this part of his work. They appear to me both false and
dangerous. Immersion he considers as indecent and indelicate, and in
several cases he attempts to prove its impracticability. " The immersion
of one person by another,'' says Mr. Ewing, " except in cases of necessity
or mercy, seems to be contrary to decency, and to the respect which we
owe to one another." Mr. Ewing commences very properly, by saying,
" I feel it incumbent on me to enforce my conviction on others, by every
consideration which the examination of the Scriptures on the subject has
suggested to my mind." By all means, let us have every thing that the
Scriptures suggest on this subject. Pray now, Mr. Ewing, was it the
Scriptures that suggested this objection ? This is an appeal to our pride
against the law of Christ, — an appeal, however, that is likely to have
more weight with some, than an appeal to the word of God. But is
there more dignity and delicacy in pouring water into a person's turned
up face, out of the hand, so that some of the water must be swallowed?
Had Mr. Ewing, however, established this from the Scriptures, he
would have heard no objection from me on this ground. I would not
take the responsibility of this argument for all the wealth of the city of
Glasgow. Let Mr. Ewing take care that he is not enlisting the corrup-
tion of the Christian's heart against the appointment of Jesus. Does not
Mr. Ewing see that the respect we owe to one another has no concern in
the question ? If it suits the wisdom of Christ's appointments that one
person should be immersed by another, even were it a real humiliation,
it is to Christ we stoop. That God's institutions cannot foster any of the
corruptions of our nature, is self-evident ; but that they should consult
our sentiments of dignity and delicacy, is a thing that no one acquainted
with the Scriptures ought to assert. Has Mr. Ewing never read the Old
Testament ? Did he never hear of such a thing as circumcision ? Has
he forgotten the transaction in Abraham's house on the institution of
that ordinance ? Was there more dignity in that operation, with respect
to the father of the faithful, and the males of his house, than there
is in immersion in water. What shall we say of the transaction at
the Hill of Foreskins? What shall we say of many parts of the law
of Moses? What shall we say of many parts both of the Old Testa-
ment and the New ? Try them by Mr. Ewing's test, and they must be
expunged from the book of God. Infidelity here may have a plausible
handle, though no just ground of objection. But in immersion, with
respect both to males and females, there is none. Mr. Ewing's caricature
of the immersion of females, is so much in the spirit of the means by
which the Church of Rome keeps the higher ranks from reading the
166 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
Scriptures, that I have no language strong enough to express my feelings
of abhorrence. " Shall you permit your wives and daughters," say the
enemies of the Scriptures, " to read the indelicate statements of the
Bible?" It is said that there is no more usual argument to dissuade the
higher classes in France from reading the Scriptures than their indelicacy.
They are told that the Bible, on this account, is the very worst of books
that can be put into the hands of youth. And shall the man of God
blow the trumpet of Satan in the camp of Israel? If immersion is an
ordinance of Christ, it is a fearful thing to oppose it by such an engine.
It is not the first time, however, that Jesus has been rebuked as a sinner.
In the estimation of the Pharisees, he broke the sabbath ; he was charged
as a wine-bibber and a glutton ; and it is not strange that the wisdom of
this world should find indelicacy in his ordinances.
Mr. Ewing thinks himself very strong, with respect to the argument
from the scarcity of water ; and no doubt he will appear so to a numer-
ous class of his readers. But the argument, instead of having weight,
cannot be admitted to a hearing by any one who understands the nature
of evidence. All the information that can be collected at this distance
of time, cannot assure us that there were not other resources of water,
of which we have no account. Mr. Ewing may say that the pool of
Bethesda may have been sufficient only for one person to go down at a
time. Well, if my cause obliged me to prove that it admitted two,
I grant that I could not prove it. But I am not bound to proof. I may
say that it may have admitted a hundred to go down at once, and the
bare possibility is enough to remove the objection. Neither of us can
prove the dimensions of it. If, then, there had been no water in Jeru-
salem but this pool, I am at liberty to suppose that it might have sufficed.
The pool of Siloam may have been only sufficient to wash the eyes, but
it may have been sufficient to float a ship. This is quite enough for
me. If immersion is not impossible in some of the places where baptism
was performed, no man who understands reasoning will object on this
ground.
Were I engaged with Mr. Ewing, even in an historical controversy,
with respect to the supply of water in Jerusalem in the days of the
apostles, I could easily show that his conclusions are unwarranted. He
depends on the accounts of modern travellers. I would admit their
statements, and deny the consequence. Must the supply of water be the
same now as it was then? Aqueducts and reservoirs may have then
existed, of which there are no remains. Herod, at great expense,
brought water to the city by aqueducts, from a considerable distance;
and the pools, and fountains, and rivers, cannot now be estimated. The
supply of water to the city of God, could not be inadequate to the wants
of the inhabitants, and to the use of it in legal purifications, which
required abundant resources. Shall we judge of the supply of water in
the days of the apostles, by that of the present time, when Jerusalem is
suffering under the curse ? How much depended at that time upon rain?
Is there reason to think that the supply is equal at present? Earth-
quakes alter the course of rivers, and often seal up fountains. In the
year 1182, as Goldsmith relates, most of the cities of Syria, and the
THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 167
kingdom of Jerusalem, were destroyed by an earthquake. Mr. Gibbon
makes a like objection to the Scripture account of the fertility of Judea.
The present barrenness of that country, he considers as proof of the
falsehood of the accounts of its ancient fertility. This, which may ap-
pear to many very sage, is in reality very shallow. There are many pos-
sible ways in which the fertility of that country may differ at different
times. The peasants of Switzerland draw walls of stone across their
declivities, to keep up the mould which industry has brought to the
nourishment of their vines. If these were for a few years neglected, the
rains would sweep away all their labours, and there would be nothing in
the place of luxuriance, but barrenness and naked rocks. Must the
brook Kedron have been as scanty as it is now ? Mr. Ewing tells us
that, like other brooks in cities, it was contaminated. Did the filth run
up the stream ? and could they not have baptized where it entered the city,
or upwards? The very attempt to prove, at this distance of time, that
there could not be water in or near Jerusalem for immersion, is absurd.
I would hold this, were the question merely an historical one. But if
the Holy Spirit testifies that the disciples were baptized on believing the
gospel, and if I have proved that this word signifies to immerse, then,
though there were real difficulties on the subject, I am entitled to sup-
pose that there must have been in some place a supply of water.
John the Baptist had enough of water in the Jordan ; but if there is
enough of water, there are, it seems, other wants. " In the course of his
ministry," says Mr. Ewing, " he drew his illustrations, like his Master,
who came after him, from the objects surrounding him at the time. But
he says nothing of the stream, of its depth, of its rapidity, of its strength,
of its overflowings, of its billows, of its qualities of purification." Was
ever anything so childish put upon paper? Can any mind suppose that
there is argument in this? Did ever John the Baptist illustrate his sub-
ject by allusions to popping? Is the absence of any such allusions, to
be received as evidence that there was not immersion in baptism?
"As a teacher," says Mr. Ewing, "you never find him in the river."
Does this say that, as a baptizer, he might not have been in the river?
Such arguments are not only unsound, but absurd. Whenever they
have any weight, there must be an indistinctness of vision, as to the na-
ture of evidence.
I will not go out of my way to look for water to immerse the disciples
of Sychar in Samaria. If Mr. Ewing knows that they were baptized,
from the usual practice, I know they were immersed, from the meaning
of the word. Had I no other resource, I would make Jacob's well sup-
ply me. But as it is not said where they were baptized, I will make
them conduct Christ and the apostles on their way, till they come to
water. I care not where the water is to be found ; if they were baptized,
they were immersed.
Mr. Ewing, as well as Dr. Wardlaw, learns from Peter's phraseology,
"can any man forbid water?" that the water was to be brought to the
place. And if this were certain, it affects not the question. Must the
observance of the ordinances of Christ never put us to trouble ? But the
expression imports no more, than "who can forbid baptism to the per-
168 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
sons who have already received the Holy Spirit?" without any respect
to mode.
The phraseology of Ananias, it seems, forbids immersion : — "Arise,
and be baptized." Where is the proof here? Why, there is no going
down to the water, nor coming up from it. Is there any man so frantic
as to suppose, that this phraseology must apply to every baptism? Bap-
tism in a bath, is as good as baptism in the Jordan.
But Paul was baptized after a three day's fast, before he had received
either meat or strength. " Would this have been done," we are asked,
" had his baptism been immersion ?" It was done, yet his baptism was
immersion. From this, let us learn that baptism is not a thing to be
trifled with, but ought to be performed as soon as possible after the be-
lief of the truth. It would give me great pleasure, if Mr. Ewing would
make this use of the circumstance. He has certainly delayed his bap-
tism much too long.
But the jailer — How shall Ave find water to immerse the jailer ? " The
argument," says Mr. Ewing, " that there was a bath in the jail at Philippi,
because there is a very fine tank at Calcutta, and always is one to be
found in an eastern jail, may be illustrated in this manner : There was
a stove in the jail at Philippi, because there is a very fine one in the jail
at St. Petersburgh, and always is one to be found in a northern jail."
Does Mr. Ewing suppose that his opponents are bound to prove that
there must have been a bath in the jail at Philippi ? That there may
have been one, js quite sufficient for our purpose. Even this is not ne-
cessary. Any vessel that will hold a sufficient quantity of water, will
serve us equally well. Besides, for any thing in the narrative, the bap-
tism might have taken place in any part of the town. It is madness to
suppose that immersion was here impossible ; and if it was not impossi-
ble, the objection is not valid. There might have been a thousand ways
of obtaining water of which we are ignorant. To suppose that it is ne-
cessary to produce, from the history, an actual supply of water, in the
case of every baptism, implies a radical error with respect to the first
principles of evidence. The jailer and his household were baptized,
therefore they were immersed. What sober mind will go in quest of the
water, in a foreign country, at the distance of nearly two thousand
years.
CHAPTER III.
THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM.
Section I. — Having ascertained the mode and the meaning of this
ordinance, I shall now inquire who are the subjects of it. If our minds
were uninfluenced by prejudice, this inquiry would not be tedious. We
have the answer obviously in the words of the apostolical commission :
" Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name
of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost ; teaching them
to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you : and, lo, I am
with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen." Matt, xxviii. 19.
It is well known that the word corresponding to teach, in the first
instance in which it occurs in this passage, signifies to disciple, or make
scholars. To disciple all nations, is to bring them by faith into the
school of Christ, in which they are to learn his will. The persons, then,
whom this commission warrants to be baptized, are scholars of Christ,
having believed in him for salvation. If this needed confirmation, it
has it in the record of the commission by Mark : " Go ye into all the
world, and preach the Gospel to every creature. He that believeth and
is baptized, shall be saved ; but he that believeth not, shall be damned."
Here the persons whom Matthew calls disciples, Mark calls believers.
According to this commission, then, none are warranted to be baptized
but disciples or believers. But our opponents affect to treat this pas-
sage as not at all to the purpose ; alleging, that though it commands
believers to be baptized, it does not exclude the infants of believers.
They consider this as common ground, and as teaching a doctrine which
they do not deny, without opposing the peculiar doctrine which they
hold. Accordingly, they run over this commission with the greatest
apparent ease, and are amazed at the want of perspicacity in their oppo-
nents, who see in it anything unfavourable to the baptism of infants.
Now, this evidence strikes me in so very different a light, that I am
willing to hang the whole controversy on this passage. If I had not
another passage in the word of God, I would engage to refute my oppo-
nents from the words of this commission alone. Dr. Wardlaw thinks
he has shown as clear as a sunbeam, that the words of this commission
have no bearing on the subject. I will risk the credit of my under-
standing, on my success in showing that, according to this commission,
believers only are to be baptized. It is impossible that a command to
22 169
170 THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM.
baptize believers, can be extended to include any but believers. We
need not say tbat this cannot be done by inference ; I say it cannot be
done by the most express command or explanation. No command, no
explanation, can bring unbelievers into the commission that enjoins
the baptism of believers. Even if I found another command, enjoining
the baptism of the infants of believers, I should not move an inch from
my position. I should still say, this is not included in the apostolical
commission. This is another commission, and cannot interfere with the
former. This would establish the baptism of infants, indeed ; but it
would not be according to this commission, nor included in it. It would
be another baptism, far more different from the baptism of this com-
mission, than the baptism of John was from that of the apostles. This
command to baptize the infants of believers, would not be according to
the command to baptize believers. There would then be two baptisms,
on quite different grounds ; the one on the ground of faith, the other on
the ground of descent. Talk not, then, of the Abrahamic covenant, and
of circumcision; if a baptism, or any other New Testament ordinance,
must be found to correspond to these, it cannot be forced into the bap-
tism commanded in this commission. I would gainsay an angel from
heaven, who should say that this commission may extend to the baptism
of any but believers. His assertion would imply a contradiction. It
would imply that the same persons may be, at the same time, both
believers and unbelievers. Here, then, I stand entrenched, and I defy
the ingenuity of earth and hell to drive me from my position. This
COMMISSION TO BAPTIZE BELIEVERS, DOES NOT INDEED IMPLY THAT IT IS
IMPOSSIBLE THAT ANOTHER COMMISSION MIGHT HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO
BAPTIZE INFANTS, BUT, BY NECESSITY, IT EXCLUDES THEM FOR EVER
FROM BEING INCLUDED IN THIS COMMAND. If INFANTS ARE BAPTIZED,
IT IS FROM ANOTHER COMMISSION ; AND IT IS ANOTHER BAPTISM, FOUNDED
ON ANOTHER PRINCIPLE.
But not only does this commission exclude infants from the baptism
it enjoins: if there were even another commission enjoining the baptism
of infants, when these infants, who have been baptized in infancy,
according to this supposed second commission, believe the gospel, they
must be baptized according to the commission, Matt, xxviii. 19, with-
out any regard to their baptism in infancy. The commission com-
mands all men to be baptized on believing the gospel. Had there been
even a divinely appointed baptism for them in infancy, it cannot inter-
fere with this baptism, nor excuse from obedience to the command
that enjoins believers to be baptized. The command of Jesus to every
believer to be baptized, stands engraven in indelible characters in this
commission. Till the trumpet sounds for judgment, it cannot be effaced.
I call on all believers, on their allegiance to the Son of God, to submit
to this ordinance of his kingdom. Heaven and earth will pass away,
before it will cease to be a duty for believers to be baptized. I main-
tain that it is impossible for any explanation, or any express command
for another baptism, to excuse them from this. Is there any power
on earth to abrogate this command? Who can alter it, or substitute
another baptism for it ? Till the end of the world, it will remain a
THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 171
duty for all believers to be baptized. Who is he that dares to substitute
infant baptism for the baptism of believers? Whoever he is, he is the
man who, by his tradition, makes void the law of God. Our Lord
charged the traditions of the Pharisees, not only as the commandments
of men in the things of God, but also as making void the commandments
of God. He alleged one instance in which the command of God was
made void by the traditions of the Pharisees. God commanded the
children to support their parents if they needed it ; but the Pharisees, by
an invention of their own, eluded this command. Just so with infant
baptism. It has usurped the place of believer baptism ; and, as far as
it is received, sets the ordinance of God aside altogether. So it happens,
that this great law of the kingdom, that Jesus has connected so promi-
nently with the truth itself; this ordinance, that, in so lively a manner,
exhibits that truth in a figure to be observed immediately after its
reception, is now generally set aside. Believer baptism is virtually
abolished, and expressly explained as fit only for the first reception of
Christianity in every country. Why, my brethren, do ye make void the
law of God by your traditions?
But Dr. Wardlaw will say, "the reply to this is simple and satisfactory."
" Suppose," says he, " the ordinance of circumcision had been to
continue, and the command had run in these terms: — 'Go ye, therefore,
and disciple all nations, circumcising them in the name of the Father,' &c.
Had such language been used, we should have known that children were
to be the subjects of the prescribed rite, as well as their parents : the
previously existing practice would have ascertained this." I deny it, Dr.
Wardlaw. I will not be driven from my position by circumcision more
than by baptism. Had such a commission been given to circumcise, it
would have excluded infants utterly. Could a command to circumcise
believers, include a command to circumcise any but believers ? This is
impossible. No matter what was the former practice with respect to
circumcision. If the apostles are commanded to circumcise believers,
they cannot, in virtue of that commission, circumcise any but believers.
I will say, also, that if we met in another part of Scripture, a command
to circumcise the infants of believers, it would not be included in the
apostolical commission. A command to circumcise believers, can extend
to none but believers. But Dr. Wardlaw will say, we know that the
Jews did circumcise infants. We do indeed know this, but are we to
do every thing that was enjoined on the Jews? This commission to
circumcise believers, would exclude the circumcision of infants ; because
it extends to none but believers. The Jewish practice as to circum-
cision, could not show what must be the Christian practice as to this
rite, had it been appointed as a Christian ordinance ; and no practice
could reduce infant circumcision to a commission enjoining believer
circumcision. I stand then to my position as well if a Jewish ordinance
is adopted, as if a new ordinance is introduced. A command to believers
to observe any ordinance whatever, can never imply any but believers.
This is as clear as the light of heaven. It is a first truth. The denial
of it implies a contradiction. " Would they," (the apostles) says Dr.
Wardlaw, " certainly have inferred from it, that, although the same rite
172 THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM.
was to continue, there was to be a change in the subjects of it 1" There
is no need of any inference on the subject. That believers, in such a
supposed commission, are the only subjects of the rite enjoined on
believers, would be self-evident to all who are capable of understanding
the terms. What inconsistency would they see in the continuation of
the same rite, while the subjects of it were changed ? Had the paschal
lamb been continued instead of the Lord's supper, would it imply
that all who among the Jews ate the passover, should eat it among
Christians ?
Suppose the government gives orders to the colonel of a regiment, to
fill up a certain company with men six feet high. The colonel sends out
his recruiting officers with instructions accordingly. When the recruits
are brought to the standard, they are found in general to measure only
five feet eight inches. Have the recruiting officers fulfilled their com-
mission ? Did not the instructions that mentioned six feet high as the
standard, forbid all under that measure to be enlisted? It is not
possible to bring into the commission any who come short of that
measure. What can justify those who have been guilty of such a
neglect of orders ? What can screen them from the displeasure of their
colonel ? They have wasted the king's money, they have suffered the
time appointed to elapse, and what is worst of all, they have disobeyed
orders. But a flippant recruiting sergeant, instructed by Dr. Wardlaw,
stands forward in his defence. " Stop a little, colonel, I will prove to
you that our conduct is entirely justifiable. Nay, except you had
positively forbidden us to enlist any under six feet, we were warranted
to conclude that we were not limited. It is true, that our commission
mentions six feet as the standard, but did we not know that in the
company for which we were enlisting, there have hitherto always been
many men not more than five feet eight ? Now, good colonel, were we
not bound, in interpreting your instructions, to avail ourselves of our
previous knowledge of the practice in the company? I can assure you
also, colonel, that we have the sanction of the Independent churches for
this way of reasoning, though they profess the strictest adherence to the
Scriptures. Mr. Ewing and Dr. Wardlaw explain their Lord's com-
mission to baptize, in the very way in which we have explained our
commission to enlist. If they treat the commission of the Lord of
heaven in that way, it surely cannot be blameable in us to treat your
commission in a similar manner. We reasoned from the former practice,
and thought from this, thatTwe were not bound to what was specified in
our orders." "You thought, Sir!" says the colonel, " you reasoned !
Who authorised you to reason on the subject? Your business, Sir, was
to obey. Your orders were so plain that they could not be mistaken.
You had no right to reason, whether you would obey them or neglect
them. Your conduct is unsoldierly, and would subvert all discipline.
Drop your swords, take up your muskets, and return to the ranks."
And does Dr. Wardlaw expect a " well done, good and faithful servant,"
for conduct that would degrade a recruiting sergeant? Cease, Dr.
Wardlaw, to pervert the word of the Lord : cease to teach his children
how to evade his injunctions : cease to justify as an institution of Christ,
THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 173
the inventions of men : cease to force a commission enjoining the bap-
tism of believers, to sanction the baptism of infants : cease to loose the
subjects of Jesus from the first law of his kingdom.
With reference to Mark xvi. 16, Mr. Evving says, " From this text
some infer, that a person must actually believe, else he cannot be baptized.
With as much reason they might infer, that a person must actually
believe, else he cannot be saved." Certainly ; if there were no way of
saving children but by the Gospel, this conclusion would be inevitable.
The Gospel saves none but by faith. But the Gospel has nothing to do
with infants, nor have Gospel ordinances any respect to them. The
Gospel has to do with those who hear it. It is good news ; but to infants
it is not news at all. They know nothing of it. The salvation of the
Gospel is as much confined to believers, as the baptism of the Gospel is.
None can ever be saved by the Gospel who do not believe it. Conse-
quently, by the Gospel no infant can be saved. It is expressly, with
respect to such as hear it, that the Gospel is here said to be salvation by
faith, and condemnation by unbelief. " Go ye into all the world, and
preach the Gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized
shall be saved ; but he that believeth not shall be damned." Here the
salvation and the condemnation respect those to whom the Gospel comes.
Infants are saved by the death of Christ, but not by the Gospel — not by
faith. Adults are saved by faith, not from the virtue of faith, but it is
of faith that it might be by grace. Infants who enter heaven must be
regenerated, but not by the Gospel. Infants must be sanctified for hea-
ven, but not through the truth as revealed to man. We know nothing
of the means by which God receives infants ; nor have we any business
with it. The salvation that the Gospel proclaims to the world, is a
salvation through the belief of the truth, and none have this salvation
without faith. The nations who have not heard the Gospel, cannot be
saved by the Gospel, because the Gospel is salvation only through faith
in it. They are not condemned by the Gospel ; for it is condemnation
only to those who do not believe it. To them it is neither a benefit nor
an injury. They will be judged, as we are assured in the Scriptures,
according to the law written on the heart. I admit, then, that the salva-
tion of the apostolic commission, is as much confined to believers, as the
baptism of that commission is confined to such. The man who would
preach infant salvation out of the apostolic commission, or attempt to
prove that the commission may be explained so as to include it, I should
gainsay, on the same ground on which I resist the attempts to include
in it infant baptism. None can be saved by the Gospel, but such as
believe the Gospel ; none can be baptized with the baptism of the Gospel,
but such as believe the Gospel. There is no exception to either.
But that believers only can be baptized by this commission, is clear
from that into which they are said to be baptized : " Baptizing them into
the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." It is
into the faith and subjection of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, that
men are to be baptized. Surely none can be baptized into the faith and
subjection of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, but adults. Infants cannot
believe, nor express subjection. About the glorious doctrine imported
174 THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM.
in these words, we have no dispute. On this all important point, we
have one mind. And I joyfully profess that I embrace as brethren in
Christ all who are united with me in that doctrine, and the truths im-
ported in it. While, therefore, I use the surgical knife with an unspar-
ing hand, to remove the morbid parts of the reasoning of my brethren,
I love them for their love to that truth ; and I cut only to heal. My
brethren love the thing imported by baptism, while I lament that they
spend so much zeal in endeavouring to establish a baptism not instituted
by Christ. In doing so, they injure thousands and thousands of their
brethren, and cannot but injure themselves. It is impossible to fight
against God on any point, without being wounded. I acknowledge I was
long in the same transgression. Many infants have I sprinkled ; but if
I know my own heart, I would not now pour water into a child's face in
the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, for the
globe on which I stand. Ah, my brethren ! it is an awful thing to do
in the Lord's name, that which the Lord has not appointed. Who has
required this at your hands? You may explain, and reason, and sup-
pose, but, till the trumpet sounds, you will never force this commission
to include your baptism of infants. You may conjure up difficulties to
perplex the weak ; your ingenuity may invent subterfuges that may
cover error ; but you will never find an inch of solid ground on which
to rest the sole of your foot. Your work will never be done. You are
rolling the stone of Sisyphus, and the farther you push it up hill, with
the greater force will it rebound on your own heads. The labours of
Hercules are but an amusement compared with your task. Ingenuity
may put a false system plausibly together ; but no ingenuity can give
it the solidity and life of the truth. It may satisfy as long as persons do
not inquire deeply and earnestly into the question. But it will not
satisfy when the mind begins to say, " Lord, what wouldst thou have
me to do?"
That believers only are included in the baptism of this commission, is
clear also from the command to teach the baptized : " Teaching them to
observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." Here the per-
sons baptized are supposed to be capable of being taught the other
ordinances enjoined by Christ. Children then cannot be included.
Never was a commission more definite. Never was a commission
violated with less excuse of ambiguity. Yet the arrogance of human
wisdom has totally reversed the ordinance here enjoined. It has ordered
infants to be baptized, who, by the very terms of this commission, are
excluded from this baptism : and it leaves unbaptized, believers whom
only Jesus hath commanded to be baptized. Is not this the very spirit
of Antichrist? Christians, how long will ye suffer yourselves to be
deluded by the inventions of the mother of harlots? How long will you
observe the inventions of men as the institutions of God? Will the
antichristian leaven never be purged out of the churches of Christ?
Why will ye deprive yourselves of the edification and comfort to be
derived from the true ordinances of your Lord ? Why will ye continue
to seek evasions with respect to a law that is designed to enrich you?
Why tarry ye, my brethren? arise and be baptized, and wash away
THE SUBJECTS OP BAPTISM. 175
your sins, calling on the name of the Lord. As long as ye remain igno-
rant of this ordinance, much of the treasures of Divine knowledge are
locked up from you.
The baptism of John was in two points essentially different from the
baptism of the apostolic commission ; but in mode and subjects it was
perfectly coincident. John did not baptize into the name of the Father,
and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost : he did not baptize into the faith
of Christ as come, but as about to be made manifest. As far, however,
as concerns our subject, the two baptisms correspond. Let us then
examine the evidence to be derived from the baptism of John. " John
did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for
the remission of sins. And there went out unto him all the land of
Judea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river
of Jordan, confessing their sins," Mark i. 4. Here we see John's baptism
was a baptism of repentance, in order to remission of sins. It could not,
then, include infants who cannot repent, and whose sins, when they die
in infancy, are not remitted on repentance, arising from the belief of the
truth, but through the blood of Christ, applied in a way of which we can
learn nothing from the Scriptures, and with which we have no concern.
Some, indeed, reply, that it is not impossible for God to give faith to in-
fants. Dr. D wight himself says, that John the Baptist had faith from
the womb. If John the Baptist was a man when he was a child, Dr.
Dwight in this is a child when he is a man. It is astonishing how silly
wise men will become, when they attempt to force the word of God. It
must be a Divine judgment, that when his servants use his word as an
instrument to lead his people astray, the Lord gives them up to speak
foolishly, so as to put them to shame. Infants lfave faith ! Where dees
their faith go, when they begin to speak? Can they have faith without
knowledge? And did any one ever hear of the knowledge of infants?
But this observation is founded on deep ignorance. It proceeds on the
supposition, that as faith is necessary to the salvation of adults, it is
necessary in infants also. The necessity of faith to salvation, they must
consider as a necessity of nature, and not a necessity of Divine appoint-
ment. They suppose that God himself cannot save infants, without giv-
ing them that faith that he requires of all who hear the Gospel. Now,
there is no such necessity. Faith is necessary to those who hear the Gos-
pel, because God has absolutely required it. But it is not at all necessary
to infants, because he hath not required it in infants. The atonement
through the blood of Christ is the same to infants as to believers ; but it
is not applied to them in the same way. John the Baptist is not said
to have had faith when an infant. He is said indeed to be sanctified
from the womb, but this was not a sanctification through belief of the
truth. Adults are sanctified by faith, but infants are not sanctified by
faith. If infants believe, we should hear them, as soon as they begin
to speak, talking of the things of God, without any teaching from the
parents, or the Scriptures. Was ever any such thing heard ? Can there
be any surer evidence, on the very face of the question, that the Scrip-
tures know nothing of infant baptism, than that the wisest of its defend-
ers should utter absurdities so monstrous in order to prove it? But were
176 THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM.
we even to grant that John the Baptist had this infant faith, does it fol-
low that all the children of believers have it also? Is it not mentioned
as a thing extraordinary, that John was sanctified from the womb? Let
them baptize none in infancy, but such as they have reason to believe
are sanctified from the womb. I will go farther. Had God made faith
necessary to the salvation of infants, and had he appointed to give faith
to dying infants, this would not imply that he gives faith to those who
live. Were this the case, they would all be believers before they hear
the Gospel. I am sure Christian parents cannot receive such doctrine.
They know that their children are ignorant of God, till, by the hearing
of the Gospel, he shines into their heart, to give them the light of the
knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. Can any
absurdity exceed that of the opinion that infants are baptized on the
supposition that they have faith ? If it can be fairly made out that the
circumstance of being born of Christian parents is evidence that infants
have faith from the womb, I have no objection to baptize them. To
defend infant baptism on this ground, is virtually to give it up. It ac-
knowledges the necessity of faith in order to baptism ; but outrages
common sense, in order to find it in infants, when they are born. Chris-
tians, is the man worthy of a hearing, who tells you that infants have
faith as soon as they come into this world ; yea, and before they come
into the world? Can such nonsense be worthy of refutation ? Were it
not that the names under which such absurdities are ushered into the
world, have a weight with the public, these arguments would be un-
worthy even of being mentioned.
The baptism of John was not only a baptism on repentance for remis-
sion of sins, it was also a baptism in which sins were confessed. He bap-
tized them in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins. Now infant faith
will not do without infant confession. Can infants confess their sins ? If
not, they were not baptized by John. It was the perception of this diffi-
culty that first appointed sponsors, who believe, and repent, and confess for
the infant. Unhappily our Independent brethren have not this resource.
The points in which John's baptism differed from that of Christ, may
be seen, Acts xix. 1-5 : "And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at
Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts, came to Ephesus ;
and finding certain disciples, he said unto them, Have ye received the
Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not
so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. And he said unto
them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's
baptism. Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of re-
pentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which
should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this,
they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." Here we see that
John did not baptize into the name of the Holy Ghost, for they did not
know that this distinction in the Godhead exists. Besides, John bap-
tized into the faith of the Messiah about to be manifested : Christ's bap-
tism must confess that Jesus is the Christ. This is an essential differ-
ence. Accordingly, " when they heard this, they were baptized in
the name of the Lord Jesus." John's baptism did not serve for Christ's
THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 177
baptism. Human wisdom will correct the Scriptures here/and because
it cannot see why John's baptism will not serve for Christ's, the words
have been tortured to make them say, that they were baptized into
Christ by being baptized by John. No ground, however, can be found
in the passage for this conceit. No force can extract it from the words.
It is man's scripture — not God's.
John's baptism, then, did not serve for Christ's. If so, infant baptism,
even if such a thing had been instituted by Christ, would not serve for
the baptism in Christ's commission, which is believer baptism. Paul
baptized the disciples of John the Baptist, because they had not been
baptized into the faith of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost ; and because
they had been baptized only in the faith of the Messiah to come. Surely
then, they who are baptized in infancy upon any pretence whatever,
must be baptized when they come to the faith of the Gospel.
But if John's baptism implied repentance and confession of sin, how
could Jesus submit to it? This apparent inconsistency struck John
himself so forcibly, that he even presumed to forbid him. " But John
forbade him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee ; and comest
thou to me?" Jesus did not deny this; personally he had no sins to
confess ; yet still there was a propriety in his submitting to the baptism
of repentance. " And Jesus answering, said unto him, Suffer it to be so
now : for thus it becometh us to fufil all righteousness." It was neces-
sary for Jesus to observe all the Divine institutions incumbent on his
people. But if this was necessary, there must be a propriety in the
thing itself. It must not be to Christ an unmeaning ceremony. If he
submits to the baptism of repentance, there must be a point of view in
which it suits him. And what is that point of view? Evidently that,
though he is himself holy, harmless, and undefined ; yet, as one with us,
he is defiled. Just as, by our oneness with him, we can say, " who
shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect?" so by his being one
with us, he can confess himself a sinner. The oneness of Christ and his
people, then, is not a figurative way of speaking ; it is a solid and con-
soling truth. By it we die in Christ's death, and are acquitted as inno-
cent; by it Christ is made sin for us, who, in his own person, knew no
sin. Christ's baptism, then, is no exception from what is implied in
John's baptism. It has the same meaning, as well as the same figure to
him as to us. In Christ's being buried in the waters of Jordan, we have
a figure of the way in which he was acquitted from the debt he took on
him. It represented his death, burial, and resurrection. If we are
guilty by being one with Adam, Christ was in like manner guilty by
becoming one with us. The object of John's baptism was exhibited in
the immersion of Jesus.
It is odd, however, in what a different light the same evidence strikes
different people. In the account of the baptism of John, I can see
nothing but the immersing of persons professing repentance : Mr. Ewing
sees with equal clearness, that the business was done by pouring water
on the turned-up face ; and that infants were popped as well as their
parents. Really it is strange, if the words of the Spirit are like an oracle
of Delphi, that can be interpreted in two opposite senses.
23
178 THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM.
Upon what ground can Mr. Ewing conclude, from this account, that
John baptized infants? Here is the proof, and surely it is demon-
stration itself! " Consider," says Mr. Ewing, " the very general and
comprehensive terms in which the people are said to have come to be
baptized, Matt. iii. 5, 6 : 'Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all
Judea, and all the region round about. Jordan, and were baptized of him
in Jordan, confessing their sins.' This account," says he, " most natu-
rally admits the supposition, that the inhabitants of those places, came
usually at least, with their families." The account does not import even
this. If the whole question depended on the presence of a child, the
history could not prove it. But what if it could be proved that children
accompanied their parents ? Would this prove their baptism? "The
general and comprehensive terms." How are the terms general and com-
prehensive? Are they so general and comprehensive as to include infants?
They are not so, Mr. Ewing. However numerous they were, they all
confessed their sins. " The disciples," says Mr. Ewing, " there went out
to meet John, as the disciples at Tyre did to take farewell of Paul."
Who told you so, Mr. Ewing? This is apocryphal. Even this you can-
not learn from the history. And if it were expressly stated, it would
not serve you. How easily is Mr. Ewing satisfied with proof, when it is
on a certain side of the question ! The whole Greek language could not
produce a phrase that his criticism would admit as conclusive evidence
of immersion. But that infants were present with their parents at John's
baptism, and baptized along with them, he admits without evidence, with
the docility of a child. If his obstinacy is invincible on some points,
he makes ample amends by his pliancy in others. No man was ever
more easily satisfied with proof of his own opinions.
"The same latitude of language," says Mr. Ewing, "is always used
respecting the administration of baptism by the disciples of Christ,
John iii. 25, 26 : ' There arose a question between some of John's dis-
ciples and the Jews about purifying. And they came unto John, and
said unto him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom
thou barest witness, behold, the same baptizetb, and all come to him.'
John iv. 1 — 3 : ' When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had
heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, (though
Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,) he left Judea, and departed
again into Gallilee.' " Now, reader, is there anything here about the
subject of infant baptism? Is it not mere dreaming, to quote these
passages in proof that Jesus baptized infants? Yet, in Mr. Ewing's
estimation, this is proof. " The two foregoing passages," says he, " evi-
dently imply that baptism was dispensed in the same extensive manner,
by the disciples of Christ, as it was by John the Baptist." There is no
doubt but John's baptism and Christ's were equally extensive. But is
this proof that either of them extended to infants ? The passages import,
that a great multitude came for baptism both to John and to Christ ;
but that infants were brought for baptism, is not hinted. On the con-
trary, those baptized by John, are baptized on a confession of sin; and
it is said that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John. The
disciples of Jesus, then, baptized while he was with them, disciples only.
But not only does Mr. Ewing find infants baptized by John ; he also
THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 179
makes provision for them in the apostolical commission itself. New,
really, if he can do this, I shall not despair of proof for transubstantiation.
Well, let us hear him. " We have to add," says Mr. Ewing, " that
there is ample room for supposing family baptism to be included in the
comprehensive terms of our Saviour's final commission, Matt, xxviii. 18."
Room, ay, " ample room." I have measured it, and I maintain, that,
if there is truth in axioms, there is not room for infants in this com-
mission ? How is the language in this commission comprehensive ?
Does Mr. Ewing find a place for the infants in the all nations ? I
cannot persuade myself that this is the refuge which he has provided
for them. Does he deny that it is disciples that the commission
enjoins to be baptized? Does he make infants disciples? Does he
deny that the commission, as recorded by Mark, makes the disciples
in Matthew xxviii. believers 1 Why did not Mr. Ewing show how
this commission comprehends infants? Why did he pass over this
with a mere assertion? If he could do this, he certainly would not
have concealed the process by which he has come to the conclusion.
That commission commands believers to be baptized ; and except both
sides of a contradiction may be true, it can never include unbelievers.
" When we consider," says Mr. Ewing, " how many things there are
which Jesus himself did, which are not written in the Gospel histories,
(John xx. 30, and xxi. 25,) we cannot wonder at the brevity of the
accounts of the subordinate practice of the disciples in dispensing bap-
tism to believers and their houses." But does Mr. Ewing suppose that
we are so unreasonable, as to look for long histories of all instances of
infant baptism, on the supposition that it was practised? We look for
no such thing. Were they included in the commission, we should not
look for a single example in practice. And if there was an instance of
the baptism of but one newly-born child, we should esteem it as valid as
a million ; valid, however, not to prove that infants are included in the
commission, — for nothing could prove this, — but valid to prove another
baptism, not interfering with the baptism of believers. Were a thousand
baptisms found in the New Testament, they could not all serve for the
baptism of the commission ; nor relieve the believer from his obligation
of being baptized on the belief of the truth. John's baptism, we have
seen, could not serve for the baptism of the apostolical commission.
Though, therefore, no evidence could convince me that it is possible
to reduce infant baptism to the commission, I am willing to examine the
practice of the apostles, to find whether they used another baptism with
respect to the infants of believers. I have no hope that we shall find
any such thing ; for the apostle tells us that there is but one baptism, as
well as one faith. Let us try, then, whether the apostle has told the
truth in this matter ; or whether his practice gave the lie to his assertion.
How did the apostle Peter preach baptism on the day of Pentecost ?
Did he preach infant baptism ? No, he preached a baptism connected
with repentance for the remission of sins. Let us hear the account given
of his doctrine on this subject by the Holy Spirit, Acts ii. 38; "Then
Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you, in the
name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the
180 THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM.
gift of the HoJy Ghost." Here baptism is connected with repentance
and remission of sins. This baptism, then, cannot extend to infants.
If infants have a baptism, it must be essentially different from this, —
more different than John's baptism is from Christ's. Well, a number of
them did repent, and were baptized. But were any infants baptized
with them ? Not a word of this. " Then they that gladly received his
word were baptized." This does not express infants, nor can it include
them. No explanation could make this account extend to infants. It
may be said, that it is possible that infants were baptized at the same
time. This is possible, just in the same way that it is possible that
the apostles administered honey and milk to the baptized persons. It is
not in evidence, either expressly, or by implication. Infants are ex-
cluded from the number who are said to be baptized ; because they
only are said to have been baptized, who received the word gladly.
The next account of baptism occurs in Acts viii. 12, "But when they
believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God,
and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and
women." Here, also, only they who believed are said to have been
baptized. But it is remarkable, that the account specifies women.
Had the account said nothing of women, yet it would have included
them as believers ; and the commission would have extended to them.
But to make the thing palpably clear, women are not only included, but
expressly included. Now, is it not remarkable that the Holy Spirit
should be so precise as to women, yet not say a word of infants ? This
is unaccountable, if they were baptized. How many volumes of con-
troversy would the addition of a word have prevented ! How liberal
was the Spirit of Inspiration as to the information about the baptism of
women ! But on the supposition that infants were baptized, how parsi-
monious with respect to the baptism of infants !
The baptism of Simon proceeded on the supposition of his faith ; and
though he was not renewed in the spirit of his mind, he was baptized on
the same ground with all others. " Then Simon himself believed also :
and when he was baptized," &c. The baptism of the eunuch was on
the same principle. These examples illustrate the commission, as
requiring baptism on the belief of the truth. True, indeed, it is
possible that faith might be required in adults and not in infants. But
the former is the only baptism included in the commission, and the only
baptism that these examples illustrate.
The baptism of Paul, Acts xxii. 16, shows that baptism is a figure
applicable only to those who are washed from their sins. " Be baptized,
and wash away thy sins." Paul's sins were already washed away, by
faith in the blood of Christ. Yet he is commanded here to wash them
away in baptism. This shows that baptism is a figure of washing away
sins, with respect to those who are already washed. To infants, it can
be no such figure. Even if all the infants of all believers, were
assuredly to be brought to the knowledge of the truth, yet this is not
done in infancy, Infant baptism, then, and believer baptism, are not the
same ordinance. To the former, it would be a sign that their sins would
hereafter be washed away; to the latter, that their sins were already, by
THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 181
faith, washed away. But who will say that there is any evidence that all
the children of all believers will ever come to the knowledge of the truth?
But surely the households will settle the business. Here is a word
comprehensive enough for including infants. This battery, then, we
cannot take. Well, I once talked of the households myself, and shel-
tered myself here as long as I could fire a gun. But my own conscience
obliged me to give up the battery at last. I maintain that it is impos-
sible to defend the cause of infant baptism by this battery. It cannot
point one gun on the enemy. Mr. Ewing and Dr. Wardlaw have made
the best of it, yet their fire is quite harmless. The noise of their guns
may startle the inexperienced soldier ; but if he can command as much
nerve as will enable him to examine the direction of their fire, he will
soon get under it. I shall begin with Dr. Wardlaw.
" In the first place, then," says Dr. Wardlaw, " there is one point of
fact undeniably clear, namely, that the apostles baptized households or
families." Granted ; but it is as clear that these were believing house-
holds. This fact signifies nothing. A household may include infants,
and it may not include them. It cannot, then, give evidence on this
point. In such a case, the extent of the baptism must be determined
by the commission. Nay, if I were assured that there were infants in
every one of the households, I should with equal confidence deny that
they were baptized. According to the commission, they could not be
baptized ; and such phraseology always admits exceptions, with respect
to those known to be excluded from the thing spoken of. When I say
that such a man and his family dined with me, I am known not to in-
clude infants. In like manner, as the baptism of the commission cannot
possibly extend to infants, even if they had been present in the families,
they are not included among the baptized. I will go a step farther. I
will suppose, for sake of argument, that the apostles did baptize infants;
even then, I will deny that the infants were baptized according to the
commission. It must have been a different baptism, and would not pre-
vent the same infants from being baptized with believer baptism, as soon
as they should believe. If one instance of infant baptism is proved, I
zvill baptize infants; but a million of such examples ivould not set aside
believer baptism.
" It should be noticed too," says Dr. Wardlaw, " that a man's house
most properly means his children, his offspring, his descendants, — and is
generally used to denote these even exclusively." This word as properly,
both from its origin and use, includes all domestics as children. It
properly signifies all the residents in a house. It is capable, indeed, of
being limited to descendants, when the connexion or known circum-
stances require it. It is, therefore, very often used with respect to them
exclusively. It is also often used to denote, not only descendants, but
ancestors and collateral relations. But in all these instances, it does not
mean residents at all. The passages to which Dr. Wardlaw refers,
respect descendants without respect to abode, 1 Kings xiv. 10, &,c.
That it also with equal propriety includes all domestics, is clear from its
use, 1 Kings iv. 7; v. 9, &c. It must then be the connexion or circum-
stances, that, in each occurrence of the word, will declare its extent. I
182 THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM.
will allow Dr. Wardlaw to limit it, when, from the connexion or circum-
stances, he proves his limitation. He must likewise allow me to limit it
by the same principles. If it may, by the connexion of circumstances,
be limited to descendants, it may also be limited to adults, by the ne-
cessity arising from the commission.
Dr. Wardlaw, in reasoning on these households, seems to forget the
difference between answering an objection and founding an argument.
It may be so, is enough to establish anything as an answer to an objec-
tion ; it may not be so, is enough to overturn it as an argument. When
I attempt to prove believer baptism, I must produce arguments to estab-
lish it ; and my opponent will succeed, if lie can show that these argu-
ments do not establish my point. In obviating an objection, I succeed,
if I can show that there is any way of understanding it consistently with
my doctrine. Now, with respect to the households, we merely stand on
the defensive. It is our business to reply to the objection grounded on
this fact. As our opponents use the fact as an argument, they must
prove that their doctrine is in it. It is enough for us to prove, that this
fact is consistent with our doctrine. If they do not prove that infant
baptism is necessarily here, the passage is useless to them. If we prove
that infant baptism is not necessarily here, we have all we wish. Now,
with respect to house, it is enough for our purpose, that the word may
include all domestics ; but it is not enough for them to show that the
word may signify descendants exclusively, unless they show a necessary
limitation, from the connexion or circumstances.
But as concerns the point in debate, I care not that it was established
that house applies to descendants only. I will still limit it farther by
the commission to adults. Even one of the passages referred to by Dr.
Wardlaw himself, might have taught him this. " One that ruleth well
his own house," 1 Tim. iii. 4. The nature of the thing asserted, deter-
mines it to apply to adults only, or at least to children capable of govern-
ment. Newly born infants are excluded. I require no more, in repel-
ling the objection from the households. As the ruling of a house cannot
apply to infants newly born, so the baptizing of a house cannot refer to
any in the house but such as come under the commission. Common sense
every day makes the necessary limitations in such indefinite forms of
speech. It is only the perverse spirit of controversy, that finds any diffi-
culty in them.
''Secondly," says Dr. Wardlaw, " To an unprejudiced reader of the
New Testament, it must, I think, be equally clear, that the baptism of
families is mentioned in a way that indicates its being no extraordinary
occurrence — but a thing of course." The baptism of households was
just as common a thing as the faith of households, and nothing more so.
That the baptism of a household was a matter of course on the faith of
the head of it, without the faith of the family, there is not the slightest
appearance. We are, indeed, informed of the baptism of Lydia's house,
without being informed of their faith. But that they had faith, the
commission leaves no doubt. The narrative tells us that the house of
Crispus believed, but it does not tell us that they were baptized, Acts
xviii. 8. We know, however, that they were baptized, because the
THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 183
commission enjoins it. In like manner, when we are told that Lydia'a
house were baptized, we know that they believed, because the commis-
sion warrants the baptism of none but believers.
Instead of stating that the baptism of Lydia's house was a thing of
course on her faith, without theirs, the narrative states, as a piece of
important information, that ought to be a lesson to every age, that
baptism is so closely connected with the belief of the truth, that not only
Lydia herself, but her whole family, were baptized, before she invited
the apostle to partake of her hospitality. " And when she was baptized,
and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be
faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she
constrained us. The work of the Lord was first attended to, and then
attention to the apostle.
That Lydia had any children, either infants or adults, is not in evi-
dence ; and therefore, as her house may have exclusively consisted of
servants, the fact can never serve the cause of infant baptism. Indeed,
from the way in which she speaks of her house, and from her being a
stranger on business in that place, there is reason to believe that her
family consisted solely of servants. But I will not build anything on
even the highest probabilities. I will lay no stone in my building, that
time will corrode. I care not that she had no servants ; her baptized
house must be believers, because the apostle had no authority to bap-
tize others. I care not that she had infants of a week old ; they could
not be included, and the form of the expression does not require that
they should be included. When it is said that a certain nobleman
" believed himself, and his whole house," John iv. 53, does it imply that
they were no infants in his house ? Does it not evidently refer to those
in his house who were capable of believing, and to all such in his house?
When it is said that Cornelius " feared God, with all his house," is it
necessary to assert that there could have been no infants under his
roof? Surely not. Why, then, is it supposed that the baptism of
households should imply the baptism of infants, who by the commission
are excluded?
" Thirdly " says Dr. Wardlaw, " Having thus the unquestionable fact
of the baptism of families, — a fact according with the ancient practice
of the circumcision of families, and supported by the use of a word that
properly denotes a man's children or offspring ; we are warranted to
assume, that such was the usual practice."
Here Dr. Wardlaw shifts the ground of his argument, and very
conveniently takes for granted the thing to be proved. What is the
unquestionable fact in his past observations ? The baptism of families
This is unquestionable, because it is expressly said. But what is the
thing that is unquestionable? Why, that the word household is so
applied. Is it unquestionable that the household were baptized, not on
account of their own faith, but on account of the faith of the head of the
family? No; this is not unquestionable; this is the point in debate.
But this is what Dr. Wardlaw's third observation takes as unquestion-
able. If it is not unquestionable in this sense, it is nothing to his
purpose. It does not accord with the ancient practice of the circum-
184 THE SUBJECTS OP BAPTISM.
cision of families. If the household believed and were baptized, it does
not accord with the circumcision of a family without any regard to faith.
Dr. Wardlaw must take for granted his own sense of the phrase ; and
when this is granted to him, he will very easily prove his point. If it is
granted as a thing unquestionable, that unbelieving families were bap-
tized, as unbelieving families might be circumcised, the debate is at
an end. But Dr. Wardlaw must prove his meaning of the phrase, before
he takes it for granted.
We are indeed warranted to assume, that it was the usual practice to
baptize every family that believed. But from the baptism of a thousand
families, we are not warranted to conclude the baptism of every family
when the head of it believed. The baptism of one family will prove
that all families in the same circumstances ought to be baptized. This
is the turning point of the argument. If we read that a man and his
whole family were hanged for murder, this will prove that every family
that joins with the head of it in committing murder, ought to be hanged.
But it will not prove that every family ought to be hanged with the
father, when he is guilty of murder. If Lydia's family were baptized
on account of her faith, having none of their own, it would prove what
Dr. Wardlaw wants ; but if this is not in evidence, he cannot take it
for granted. Dr. Wardlaw must prove that these households were
baptized, not on account of their own faith, but on account of that of
the head of the family. This is what he can never do. All the appa-
rent strength of his reasoning depends on the assumption of false prin-
ciples. No man is more convincing than Dr. Wardlaw, if it is lawful
to take for granted the thing to be proved.
Dr. Wardlaw, in the fourth place, examines " the principles on which
they endeavour to set aside the inference from the examples in question."
He thinks that they have not proved that Lydia had no children. And
does Dr. Wardlaw think that this proof lies upon us? He is a man of
war from his youth; and has he yet to learn the laws of the combat?
The proof of the fact that Lydia had children, lies on those who need
the assistance of the infants. I maintain that it is not in evidence that
she was ever married : and an argument cannot be founded on what
is not in evidence. That she may not have had a child is consistent
with all that is said here. This is sufficient for my purpose. Before
an argument can be deduced from this fact, it must be proved not only
that she had children, but infants. Nay, more, I care not that she had
infants ; the form of the expression does not require that they were bap-
tized, and the commission makes it certain that they were not baptized.
Dr. Wardlaw has a very long, and certainly a very satisfactory dis-
cussion, showing that the term brethren, in verse 40, may not refer to
Lydia's household, but all the believers of the place. Now, if our
argument required us to prove, that the brethren here must be only
Lydia's household, we never could prove it. But our argument requires
no such thing. This term can be a proof on neither side, for it is con-
sistent with both.
" Equally futile," says Dr. Wardlaw, " are the proofs adduced, that
there were no infant children in the households of the jailer, and of
THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 1S5
Stephanas." Now, if there are any on my side of the question who
think that it is necessary to prove this, I refer them to Dr. Wardlaw for
a most triumphant refutation of their sentiment. But did not Dr.
Wardlaw perceive that he was here cutting his own carotid artery ?
Did he not perceive that the very same arguments which prove that the
language with respect to the faith of the households of the jailer and of
Stephanas, is consistent with the supposition that there might have been
infants in them, equally prove that there might have been infants in
them without being baptized? When it is said with respect to the
jailer, that Paul " spake the word Of the Lord to all that were in his
house," I admit that there might have been infants. And when it is
said that a family were baptized, infants might have been in the house,
without being included in the baptism. The commission as effectually
excludes them from baptism, as their infancy excludes them from the
number of those to whom the Gospel is preached.
Dr. Wardlaw evidently does not understand the argument that we
draw from the above source. We do not attempt to prove that such
phraseology is inconsistent with the supposition, that infants were in the
families. But we allege these facts, to show that if there were baptized
families, there were also believing families ; and that if, in a believing house,
there may be unbelieving infants, so in a baptized house, there may be
unbaptized infants. By the very same arguments that our opponents
show that there might have been unbelieving infants in believing houses,
we will show that there might have been unbaptized infants in baptized
houses. But the facts alluded to are especially important, because they
apply to the very houses that are said to be baptized. This not only
shows that it was possible that there might be believing houses, but it
shows that there were such houses. Two of the three baptized house-
holds are expressly shown to be believing households. If this is not
said of the house of Lydia, it may have been the same ; and the com-
mission requires that it should be so. And if we are informed of the
baptism of Lydia's house, and not of their faith, we are told of the faith
of the house of Crispus, and not of their baptism. When we are
informed of the one, the other is necessarily understood. Why do our
opponents speak of their households at all? If the jailer had a baptized
house, had he not a believing house? If Stephanas had a baptized
house, had he not a believing house ? And why may not Lydia have
had a believing house. Our cause requires no more than that the
baptized houses may have been believing houses. We found here no
argument ; we merely reply to an objection. But that two of the three
baptized houses were believing houses, is actually in evidence. There
is here no cover for infant baptism.
" I add," says Dr. Wardlaw, " as a sixth observation, the extreme
improbability, that a change, which must have been felt so important
by those whose minds had been all along habituated to the connexion of
their children with themselves in the covenant of promise, should have
taken place without the slightest recorded symptom of opposition or
demurring." This is a mode of reasoning utterly unwarrantable, and
deserves no attention. We learn what God has enjoined from what is
24
186 THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM.
written. Even if the fact here stated could not at all be accounted for,
it could not be admitted as evidence. A thousand things might account
for it, of which we are ignorant. Is every thing recorded that took
place in the apostolic labours? Their adult children in unbelief were
admitted to all Jewish ordinances; is there any recorded complaint of
their exclusion from Christian ordinances? Why should they not com-
plain, that, as all their offspring were admitted to the passover, and all
the privileges of the Jewish church, they should be kept from the Lord's
table? But, in fact, their zeal was for the law, and nothing would
satisfy them in the room of it. Their prejudices were not at all con-
cerned about the extent of Christian ordinances. What offended them,
was the giving up of old customs. Of the extent of baptism, whatever
it was, they could not be ignorant. Why then should they murmur
against the known will of God? Upon the principle of this observation,
there were a thousand things of which they might have complained, but
of which no complaint is recorded. This takes for granted, also, that
there was a spiritual connexion between the Jews and their offspring,
which is the thing to be proved, — a thing which is not only not admitted
to be true, but which I will prove to be false. This observation proceeds
from first to last, on false principles. It takes for granted, that every
disagreeable change must have been a cause of murmuring ; and if there
was murmuring, it must have been recorded. There might have been
a disagreeable change, the principle of which might be so well under-
stood as to prevent murmuring ; and there might have been great mur-
muring without any record.
" Another remarkable circumstance," says Dr. Wardlaw, " akin to the
preceding, is, that when the Judaizing teachers insisted on the Gentile
converts submitting to circumcision, although there can be no doubt
that this was done, in every case, in. connexion with their children, yet,
when the doctrine and practice of these perverters of the Gospel came to
be discussed in the assembly of the apostles, and elders, and brethren at
Jerusalem, no notice whatever is taken of the inconsistency with the
spirituality of the new dispensation, of administering any sign to children,
on the admission of their parents into the Christian commonwealth."
This is egregious trifling. Are all things recorded that were said on
that occasion? Was there any need in that assembly to discuss every
error connected with the circumcision of the Gentiles? By cutting off
the circumcision of the Gentiles, was not the circumcision of their infants
and every error connected with it, cut off also? But such observations,
so far from deserving an answer, deserve no mention. Must the apostles
give a whole body of divinity, when they denounce a particular error?
Dr. Wardlaw, we are willing to listen to anything you can allege from
the Scripture in support of your opinion ; but such arguments merit
no consideration. This observation takes it for granted, that the apostles
could not condemn one error, without expressly denouncing every other
error connected with it ; and that we have, in the records of the Acts,
every thing that was said in the celebrated meeting at Jerusalem.
" Let it be further considered," says Dr. Wardlaw, " that we have no
recorded instance of the baptism of any person, grown to manhood, that
THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 187
had been born of Jewish converts, or of Gentile proselytes to the faith
of Christ." This would try the patience of Job. Is there any need of
such an example, in order to show that the children of such persons
should be baptized when they believe? What difference is there be-
tween such and others? Is not the law of the commission sufficient to
reach them? Is it not sufficiently clear? "He that believeth and is
baptized." " Nor have we," continues Dr. Wardlaw, " in any of the
apostolic epistles to the churches, the remotest allusion, in the form of
direction, or of warning, to the reception of such children by baptism
into the Christian church, upon their professing the faith in which they
had been brought up." A very good reason for this. The same law
applies to all. There is not the smallest difference between the ground
of receiving the child of a heathen, and the child of the most devoted
saint. When they believe, they are received equally to every thing.
" This supposition," says Dr. Wardlaw, " let it be further noticed, is
in coincidence with the fact of children being addressed in the apostolic
epistles to the churches of Christ. Thus, in Eph. vi. 1, ' Children, obey
your parents in the Lord, for this is right.' Col. iii. 20, ' Children, obey
your parents in all things ; for this is well pleasing unto the Lord.' "
Now, this argument is deduced from Scripture ; and it merits an answer.
That answer, however, is easily found. The children here addressed,
were believing members of the churches. That they may have been so,
is sufficient for my purpose. This will refute an objection. But that
they must have been such, is beyond question, from the address itself.
Their obedience to their parents, is to be " in the Lord," which applies
to believers only. The reasons of their obedience, also, show that they
were such children as were capable of faith. " This is right." — " This
is well pleasing unto the Lord." These are motives quite suitable to
believers. As soon as children can evidence that they act from these
principles, they ought to be baptized, and to walk in all the ordinances
of the Lord.
But Dr. Wardlaw thinks that the children here addressed cannot
merely be such adult children as were members of the churches; be-
cause it is immediately added, "And ye fathers, provoke not your chil-
dren to wrath; but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the
Lord." — " Fathers, provoke not your children to anger, lest they be dis-
couraged." Now, as the duty of fathers extends to all their children,
Dr. Wardlaw thinks that the children addressed, must be all the chil-
dren capable of receiving instruction. But if he were not eager in the
pursuit of something to defend his system, his powers of discrimina-
tion would discern, that in these injunctions, neither the children nor the
fathers of the one injunction, correspond to the children or the fathers
of the other. In fact, it might happen that not one of either might
correspond. When the apostle addresses the children, he addresses all
the members of the church who had fathers ; but not one of these
fathers might be in the church. So far from being necessary to sup-
pose, that all the children of the one address are the same as the chil-
dren of the other address, it is not necessary to suppose that one of
them was the same. When the children are commanded to obey their
188 THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM.
parents, their obedience is not to be confined to such fathers as were
believers and members of the church; but to fathers, whatever they
might be. And when fathers are commanded not to provoke their
children, &c, the injunction extends to all their children. The fathers
addressed may not be the fathers of the children addressed ; and the
children addressed may not be the children of the fathers addressed.
Surely Dr. Wardlaw must be in the habit of teaching according to this
distinction. I should not be so much surprised to find this indistinct-
ness of conception in those who make no distinction between the church
and the world. In the church in which I labour, there are very many
children whose parents do not belong to us ; and there are some parents
whose children belong to other denominations. Yet these apostolical in-
junctions are constantly inculcated. Children are to obey their parents
in the Lord, even if these parents are infidels ; and parents are to train
up their children in the nurture of the Lord, though they are not in the
church.
"Do our Baptist brethren," says Dr. Wardlaw, "wait till their children
are members of churches, before they venture to put their finger on the
passages we have quoted, and say, 'This is addressed to you?'" No
man who speaks correctly, can say that Ephes. vi. 1, Col. iii. 20, are
expressly directed to any but believers. But we can teach the most
disobedient children their duty from these passages. Though we can-
not tell unbelieving children that these exhortations were originally ad-
dressed to such as they are, but to believing children ; yet the duty in-
culcated is equally incumbent on all. The moral duties inculcated on
believers, are equally the duty of unbelievers. The duty of obedience
to parents is not a new duty, that results from connexion with a church,
or with receiving the gospel. What, then, in this respect, is inculcated
on believing children, equally shows the duty of unbelieving children.
Dr. Wardlaw will not say, that unbelieving fathers are directly address-
ed in the above injunctions ; yet could he not apply the injunctions, so
as to make them bear on unbelieving fathers? Could he not urge on
unbelieving fathers, their guilt in not training up their children in the
nurture of the Lord? Children, from the first dawn of reason, may be
taught their duty from such passages, without falsely telling them that
they were originally addressed to children as young as themselves. Now,
Dr. Wardlaw, of your eleven observations, this is the only one that has
even a show of argument ; yet I am sure your good sense will admit that
it is answered.
" X. The circumstances of the early history of the church, after the
apostolic age, are unaccountable on Anti-paedo-baptist principles." So,
Dr. Wardlaw, you are returning to your old mode of reasoning from dif-
ficulties. Well, then, I will admit, for sake of argument, that the thing
is unaccountable. It may be true, notwithstanding. Many things that
would cast light upon this point, may be buried in the ruins of antiquity.
I am not obliged to account for it. I will not neglect an ordinance of
Christ, I will not adopt an ordinance not founded by Christ, from any
difficulty arising from church history. My Bible, like that of Mr. Ewing
ends with the book of Revelation.
THE SUBJECTS OP BAPTISM. 189
But there is nothing more obvious to a candid mind, than the origin
of the early introduction of infant baptism. As soon as baptism was
looked on as essential to salvation, infant baptism would naturally follow.
Dr. Wardlaw, indeed, says, that we may as well suppose that the opinion
arose from the practice, as that the practice arose from the opinion. It
would be easy to show that this is not the case. But that the opinion
may have given rise to the practice, is enough for my purpose. I am an-
swering an objection, and anything that will account for the difficulty,
is sufficient. It may have been so, is quite enough for me. Even thus
much I am not bound to give. Infant communion was practised as well
as infant baptism. No matter what was the origin of either of them ; if
one of them is allowed to be an error, the early practice of the other
cannot be alleged as proof of its truth. Even were it granted that
infant communion was grafted on infant baptism, still, as it was univer-
sally received so early without having been from the apostles, infant
baptism may have been grafted on some similar stock. It is impossible
to argue consistently for infant baptism from the argument of antiquity,
and reject the same argument for infant communion. If infant com-
munion was a thing not instituted by the apostles, yet universally adopted
so early, why may not any other practice have been adopted universally
without apostolic institution? The practice of the earliest antiquity,
with respect to the ordinances of Christ, is a matter of much interest ;
and I am convinced that the subject has never been set in that light,
which the remains of antiquity would afford to candour and industry.
If God spares me life and leisure, I may yet endeavour to exhibit its
testimony. But an ordinance of Christ I will never ground on anything
but the word of God. Many things true, may be wholly unaccountable.
" XI. I have only one other particular," says Dr. Wardlaw, " to add
to this series. It is the remarkable fact of the entire absence, so far as
my recollection serves me, of anything resembling the baptism of house-
holds or families, in the accounts of the propagation of the gospel by
our Baptist brethren." Now, at first ^ight, this has an imposing appear-
ance, but, on reflection, it vanishes into air. There are not now many
examples of the abundant success that the Gospel had in the apostles'
days. We do not often find that men now believe by households, more
than that they are baptized by households. I suppose that the Baptist
missionaries have a baptized household, as often as they have a believing"
household. They will baptize Krishnoo and his family, if Krishnoo and
his family believe. I have never seen three thousand baptized on one
day, yet I have no doubt that three thousand believed on the day of
Pentecost. However, Baptist writers have produced a number of in-
stances of baptized households. But as there is no argument in the
observation, I need not refer to them.
In fact, I have never examined a series of arguments more flimsy than
these. The whole chain is no better than a web of gossamer across the
high road. It cannot stop the passage of a child. Josephus, on one
occasion, took a town by presenting a fleet before it, in which each ship
had only four mariners. If any man surrenders to Dr. Wardlaw's fleet,
it must be from want of knowing what is in the ships. The man who
190 THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM.
can satisfy himself with such arguments as these, need never want proof
of anything which he wishes to be true.
Let us now take a look at Mr. Ewing's generalship, with respect to
the households. " Family baptism," says Mr. Ewing, " as mentioned in
the New Testament, is the more remarkable, that no other ordinance,
and no privilege of any kind, is mentioned in the New Testament, as
given to families." The reason is obvious. Baptism belongs to indi-
viduals, and when a household believed, it was baptized on the same
footing as an individual. The Lord's supper belongs to Christians, not
as individuals, but as a church. It might as well be asked, why is bap-
tism given to an individual, seeing the other ordinances are observed
socially? Mr. Ewing gives the answer to himself, in the next sentence.
" Mention," says he, " is made of churches in the house of some; but it
is not said that these churches consisted of a believer and his house."
To this the reply is obvious. If a believer and his family were not a
church, why is it strange that they had not the ordinances that belong
to a church? " Neither are a believer and his house," says Mr. Ewing,
" ever said to have received the Lord's supper." I reply, If they were
only a part of a church, why should they have the Lord's supper ? If
they were a church, they had the Lord's supper, whether it is recorded
or not. There is no necessity for any such record.
" I shall now be asked," says Mr. Ewing, " if all or any of the families
of believers, where the family baptism is said to have been practised,
can be proved to have contained infants?" Yes, Mr. Ewing, we will
ask this question, and notwithstanding all you have said, we will continue
to insist on this question. " I answer," says Mr. Ewing, " that ' a house'
or family is a term which includes, in its meaning, infants as properly
as adult children ; and that, in not one of these families mentioned in
connexion with baptism, is any exception made, for the purpose of
excluding infants." This is granted fully. But it is more difficult to
conceive how such arguments can impose on a sound understanding,
than it is to answer them. House or fainily includes infants as well as
adults — if infants are in them. But from the term itself, this cannot be
learned. This is the point, Mr. Ewing. A house may have infants,
or it may not have infants ; therefore from the term we can learn nothing
on this subject. The eunuch, no doubt, had a house ; and if his house
had been said to be baptized, Mr. Ewing would not contend, that his
infants were of necessity baptized. We should know, without any
intimation, that the term house did not include his children. Just so
from the commission, we know that infants are not included among
those who were baptized in the households. The commission is as sure
a commentary on the households of Lydia, Stephanas, and the jailer, as
the state of the eunuch would have been in a like case. But Mr. Ewing
says, infants are not excepted in these households. Nor are they
excepted in the supposed case of the eunuch. There is no need for the
history to except them. They are excepted by that commission that
must guide all practice. It is a matter of the highest astonishment to
me, that Mr. Ewing and Dr. Wardlaw can see the necessity of an excep-
tion in so many other cases to such indefinite phrases, and yet not have
THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 191
the candour to admit the possibility of a like exception here. If the
commission does not include infants, are they not of necessity excluded
with respect to the households? Can anything be more obvious to
common sense, than that as a house or family may or may not have in-
fants, the baptism of a house is no proof that infants were baptized ? —
Can anything be more obvious, than that as we every day use such phra-
seology with the supposed exceptions, there may be such exceptions as
to the households ? Even if infants were proved to have been in those
houses, it would signify nothing. The phraseology admits the exception
of them, and the commission demands it. The pertinacity with which
our opponents continue to rest on the households, is a discredit to their
good sense, as well as their candour. There is no axiom in mathema-
tics more clear, than that the households are nothing to the purpose of
infant baptism. If the term household does not necessarily imply
INFANTS, THEN THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FROM THE TERM THAT THERE
WERE INFANTS IN THOSE HOUSEHOLDS. Again, AS SUCH PHRASEOLOGY
IS, IN DAILY CONVERSATION, USED WITH EXCEPTIONS ; SO, THOUGH IN-
FANTS HAD BEEN IN THOSE HOUSEHOLDS, THE KNOWN LIMITATIONS OF
the commission would except them. This is as obvious as that two
and two make four. It is useless to reason with any who are so perverse
as to deny what is self-evident ; their disease cannot be cured by argu-
ment. When Mr. Ewing says, that in the narrative of the households
there is no " exception made for the purpose of excluding infants," it is
virtually admitted that such phraseology admits exceptions. If so, may
not the exception in the commission be as valid as an exception in the
history ? Nay, the exception of the commission makes an exception in
the history perfectly unnecessary. The commission enjoins the baptism
of believers, and from that baptism all others are therefore for ever ex-
cluded. When a household were baptized according to this commission,
they must have been believers. The commission cannot be extended
farther. Nay, if a commission had afterwards been given to baptize
infants, it could never be reduced to this commission ; it could not have
been explained as included in it, nor a part of it. It would be a per-
fectly distinct commission, containing a quite different ordinance. Till
infants are believers, they can never be baptized according to a commis-
sion that enjoins the baptism of believers. If there is a commission to
enlist recruits six feet high, when we afterwards read that a family were
enlisted without specifying their height, we know that none of them
were under the standard. Were it not for the strength of prejudice, this
form of expression could not for a moment embarrass the weakest of the
children of God.
"If a man and his family are degraded," says Mr. Ewing, "does not
the degradation include infants ? If a man and his family are ennobled,
does not the nobility include infants?" It does so, not from the neces-
sity of the phraseology, but from what is known of the laws. Were it
said that a man and his family were hanged for murder, his infants
would be excluded. Were it said that after a rebellion a man and his
family received the thanks of his Majesty for their loyalty, it would not
be supposed that the infants had carried arms. " If a man and his
192 THE SUBJECTS OP BAPTISM.
family," says Mr. Ewing, " are baptized, does not the language convey
a similar meaning, namely, that the baptism includes infants ?" No, Mr.
Ewing, because it is known from the commission that infants are not
included : whereas in the other cases, it is known that infants are included.
In neither case can we learn the extent of the application of the phrase
from the phrase itself. It is indefinite, and may include all, or may ad-
mit exceptions.
" In calculating," says Mr. Ewing, " as some do, the probability of the
case, many confine their attention to the four families mentioned in Acts
x., Acts xvi. and Cor. i." Calculating probability! Is a law of God to
depend on a calculation of probabilities 1 I would as soon calculate
nativities by the stars. " But these," he continues, " are only a specimen
of the hundreds and thousands of families, which, in the propagation
of the Gospel, were treated in the same way." Who told this to Mr.
Ewing ? Has he got it in a dream, or in a vision 1 If Mr. Ewing has
not facts enough from which he may reason, he can make them. There
may have been many other households of the same kind ; but that there
were so, is not in evidence, and I will not admit it. But I reject it not
for the sake of this question ; because, if there were a million of such
families, for every one that is mentioned, they were all believing families.
The commission leaves no doubt of this. Of the three families men-
tioned, two of them are expressly represented as believing families. —
Why might not the other be so 1 I do not profess to have the gift of
second sight. I do not know how many hundred families resembled
these in their baptism. But I can judge of the evidence before me ;
and what number of families soever were baptized, the same number
believed.
But it seems there is one baptized household at least, in which it is
even certain that there were no believers but the head of the family.
" When Lydia was baptized with her house," says Mr. Ewing, " we are
made certain that they were none of them believers excepting herself."
Whence, reader, can come this certainty ? You will say, I suppose,
that Mr. Ewing has received some secret revelation on this point. No,
no, I assure you, Mr. Ewing professes to get this evidence out of the
narrative itself. The evidence is this : " For she urged Christian cha-
racter, as the argument for prevailing with Paul and Silas to accept her
hospitality. Unquestionably she put her argument as strongly as she
could ; yet as it was her heart only which the Lord opened, ver. 14, so
she could not include so much as one in the family, along with herself
as a believer ; but was obliged to use the singular number, saying, " If
ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house and
abide.' "- Now, this is so shadowy an argument, that it is as difficult to
get at it, as it was for Fingal to strike the ghosts. It is as thin as
vapour. Had she possessed a thousand servants all believers, would
she have spoken in a different manner ? Had there been a thousand
the house was hers, the hospitality was hers, and the ground of the
apostles' receiving it must be her faithfulness. The household had
nothing to do with this invitation ; their faithfulness had no concern in
it. At what a loss must the cause of infant baptism be, when such a
THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 193
man as Mr. Ewing is obliged to make such a defence ! Must Lydia
have been schooled by Sir Roger de Coverley's old butler, that she
must say, our house, our faithfulness, &c. ? The man who can take this
for evidence, will never want evidence for anything to his taste. I never
met any writer more intrepid than Mr. Ewing, in cutting down opposing
evidence ; nor more easily pleased with evidence on his own side.
Alexander himself would not more rashly draw his sword to cut a
Gordian knot; and in other things Popish credulity itself cannot be more
easily satisfied with the proof of the obedience of the church. What
Mr. Ewing here considers certain evidence, I maintain is not even the
shadow of evidence. If the Scriptures did not furnish me with better
arguments for my sentiments, I would let them sink to the bottom of the
ocean. Mr. Ewing is right in not surrendering a battery, while it is
capable of defence ; but why will he keep his flag flying, while it is
evident, from his fire, that the ammunition is expended ? Mr. Ewing is
not at all startled at the consequence of this opinion, namely, that the
unbelieving adults of Lydia were baptized on her faith. His boldness
is not to be frightened. It requires a more than ordinary audacity to
say, in the face of the commission of Jesus Christ, that unbelieving
adults should be baptized, if they happen to be in the house of a believer.
Jesus Christ has commanded believers to be baptized. Mr. Ewing
commands all the unbelievers in every believer's house to be baptized.
Christians, whether will ye obey your Lord and Saviour, or Mr. Ewing?
How long, Mr. Ewing, how long will you make void the commandment
of God by your inventions? Hath not Jesus said, "He that breaketh
the least of these my commandments, and teacheth men so, shall be
called the least in the kingdom of heaven ?" The language of Lydia is
consistent with the supposition that there was not an unbeliever in her
house. So far is it from implying that her family were all unbelievers.
" The house of Stephanas," says Mr. Ewing, " addicted themselves
to the ministry of the saints," 1 Cor. xvi. 15. " Were this a proof that
they had among them no infants, we might find a proof that the house
of the Rechabites had among them no infants, because in Jer. xxxv.
2 — 11, they addicted themselves to perform the commandment of their
father." Now, this is true : and this is the very argument by which
we prove, that, even if the households had contained infants, there is no
necessity that they should be supposed to have been baptized. We do
not argue, that, because the baptized households were believing house-
holds, there could not be any infants in the houses. But we argue, that
if there were baptized households, these households were believing
households; and that in the household of the jailer and of Stephanas we
have direct evidence. We could have known this by the commission,
had the narrative been silent. But when the narrative itself shows that
they had believing households, what difficulty is in the expression bap-
tized households ? Is not the one commensurate with the other ? The
importance of the fact of the believing households is, not to show that
there could be no infants in those houses, but to show that it is an
historical fact that there were in those houses believers to be called a
baptized household ; and to show that if there were infants in those
25
194 THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM.
houses, they may not be included among the baptized, as they certainly
are not included among the believing. The fact is very important, for
in replying to it, our opponents are obliged to refute themselves. If
there may have been infants where a house is said to believe, without
supposing that infants are believers, so where a house is said to be
baptized, there may have been in it infants who were not baptized. If
any man cannot understand the weight of this argument, it is not
argument can convince him.
Mr. Ewing asks his opponents, " if they admit the general fact of
family baptism, why they do not practise accordingly 1" And do they
not practise according to the view in which they admit this fact? Is
there any inconsistency between their practice and their admission ?
Are they inconsistent with themselves, because they practise according
to their own views, and not according to the views of Mr. Ewing ? Mr.
Ewing and Dr. Wardlavv strangely take it for granted that the house-
holds were baptized, not on their own faith, but on that of the head of
the family, which is not hinted in the narrative, and is contrary to the
commission. " To say they baptize whole families when whole families
believe," says he, " appears to me to be treating the historical Scriptures
as nugatory." But why, Mr. Ewing, does this treat the historical
Scriptures as nugatory ? " Any view of this subject," says Mr. Ewing,
" would lead us to baptize whole families, or whole nations, if they all
believed." Doubtless. And may we not say the same thing of indi-
vidual baptism ? Is the history of the baptism of the eunuch and that
of Paul nugatory, because, if neither of them had been recorded, we
should have known from the commission that believers ought to be
baptized, and that faith is necessary to baptism? There may be much
use in recording these facts, though they do not bear Mr. Ewing's infer-
ence. It is not warrantable to say, that a portion of Scripture must
have a certain meaning, because we can see no use in it, if it has not
that meaning. " It would not have made the slightest difference in the
practice," continues Mr. Ewing, " had no mention been made of family
baptism at all." Not the slightest difference. Nor would it have made
the slightest difference with respect to the baptizing of individuals, had
no example of baptism been recorded. Yet none of the examples is
nugatory; the perverseness of Christians requires them all. The
family baptisms recorded can warrant no family baptisms but such as
are recorded ; and two of these are expressly stated as believers, and the
remaining third must be according to the commission. " Unless, there-
fore," says Mr. Ewing, " we admit some peculiar connexion between the
extent of a family, and the extent of the administration of baptism, I
apprehend that family baptism is a Scripture fact which we do not yet
understand." Does not Mr. Ewing perceive that the same thing might
be said with as good reason with respect to the house of the Rechabites,
and all the examples quoted by Dr. Wardlaw of similar phraseology ?
On Mr. Ewing's principles, might I not say, unless every infant of the
house of the Rechabites was brought into the house of the Lord, and a
command given to him to drink wine, the statement of Jer. xxxv. 2 — 1 1
is absurd? Suppose the government issues a commission to raise a
THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 195
number of regiments, and to enlist all men fit for service. In the
course of the execution of this commission, we read that they enlisted A
and his family, B and his family, C and his family. Should we not
know, without a word on the subject, that the enlisted families were men
fit for service? There might be infants in the houses, but they were
no part of the enlisted families. We should not require to be informed
that two of these families were active and brave, in order to convince us
that they were not infants or women, but men. It is only the perverse-
ness of Christians in the things of God that requires such illustrations.
What shall we say of the person who would observe, that, unless it is
admitted, that whenever the head of a family is enlisted, every member
of his family, man, woman, and child, are enlisted also ; he can see no
meaning in the statement of the enlistment of the three families ? The
fact that three families are enlisted with the heads of the families, does
not imply that all families are enlisted with the heads, nor that men,
women, and* children are enlisted. It is strange that our acute opponents
cannot see so obvious a truth. It is only in the things of God that men
are children.
Mr. Ewing here takes it for granted, that it is an admitted fact, that
all families were baptized with the head, and on the faith of the head,
without any faith of their own ; nay, except they contradicted and blas-
phemed. This is not in evidence. The three examples of baptized
households state nothing of the baptism of the household on the faith of
the head, and the commission forbids the thought. There might be
many such families, but how many is not known ; nor can the number
at all influence the question. How many soever they might be, they
must all have been believing households. To justify Mr. Ewing' s ob-
servation, the commission must have been, baptize believers and their
households.
" I wished," says Mr. Ewing, " to induce my friends, who have no
experience on the subject, to compare their feelings with the feelings of
those who have such experience." Feelings have nothing to do with
this question, more than with a demonstration in Euclid. This consult-
ing of our feelings is the ground of a great part of our opposition to the
word of God. Peter consulted his feelings, and when God said, " Rise,
Peter, kill and eat," he arrogantly replied, " Not so, Lord, for I have
never eaten anything common or unclean." Shame, Peter, is there any-
thing unclean that God commands to be eaten ? What made certain
meats unclean to Israel but God's command ?
" You keep aloof," says Mr. Ewing, " from this practice, from your
apprehension of difficulty with the case of infants." Not so, Mr. Ewing :
had the command been to baptize the households of believers on the
faith of their heads, we should find no difficulty with infants. We
would baptize them, if the command included them, as soon as we would
baptize the apostles. " Now, I frankly confess," says Mr. Ewing, " that
were anything, after getting a Divine warrant, to deter me from the
practice, it would be rather the case of adults." Strange language,
indeed ! This sounds harshly in my ears. Deter from a practice for
which there is a Divine warrant ! He must have a scrupulous conscience
196 THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM.
indeed, who will speak of being deterred from executing a Divine
warrant! I would baptize Satan himself, without the smallest scruple,
had I a Divine warrant. Give us a Divine warrant, and we have no
objection, from our feelings, to baptize infants. But it appears that
Mr. Ewing finds some difficulty in the case of baptizing unbelieving
adults on the faith of the head of a family. I am glad of it. He may
yet be led to see that it is an awful thing to allege a warrant from Jesus
to baptize unbelievers, when the apostolical commission includes be-
lievers only. " But the truth is," says Mr. Ewing, " infants and adults
are precisely on a footing, in regard to the regenerating work of the Holy
Spirit, of which baptism is a figure." But are adult unbelievers to have
the figure of regeneration which they have not yet experienced ? This
contradicts every thing exhibited in the figure of baptism, which always
supposes that the person baptized is already regenerated. Mr. Ewing
says, that " in the original propagation of the Gospel, when the head of
a family believes, ' salvation is come to his house,' Luke" xix. 9 ; and
consequently the whole house may be, nay, ought to be, baptized along
with him, (with no exception because some of them may be young,) but
except they have grown so old, and so rebellious against both their
Father in heaven and their parents on earth, as to refuse the ordinance,
and to contradict and blaspheme the truth which it accompanies." This
is a most astonishing avowal. Mr. Ewing saw where his doctrine would
lead, and he has boldly avowed the consequences. Every unbeliever in
the house may be baptized, on the faith of the head, except he refuses.
I do not envy the conscience that can receive this without qualms ;
I think it will be swallowed with difficulty by many of the Independents.
But when Mr. Ewing has avowed this monstrous doctrine, where will he
find a warrant? Not in Luke xix. 9. This cannot imply that the
moment the head of a family believes, all the members of the family also
believe, or are actually made partakers of salvation. If not, it is no
warrant to baptize them. But if it does imply that they all actually
believe with the heart, then it is believer baptism. Nor does this pass-
age imply that all the members of a believer's house will at last believe,
— though even this would be no warrant for their baptism, which implies
faith at the time of baptism. Is it a fact that all the slaves, and servants,
and children of a believer, will certainly be saved? Let us hear the
passage itself: "And Jesus entered and passed through Jericho. And,
behold, there was a man named Zaccheus, which was the chief among
the publicans, and he was rich. And he sought to see Jesus, who he
was ; and could not for the press, because he was little of stature. And
he ran before, and climbed up into a sycamore tree to see him, for he
was to pass that way. And when Jesus came to the place, he looked
up, and saw him, and said unto him, Zaccheus, make haste and come
down, for to-day I must abide at thy house. And he made haste and
came down, and received him joyfully. And when they saw it, they all
murmured, saying, That he was gone to be guest with a man that is a
sinner. And Zaccheus stood, and said unto the Lord, Behold, Lord, the
half of my goods I give to the poor : and if I have taken anything from
any man by false accusation, I restore him four-fold And Jesus said
THE SUBJECTS OP BAPTISM. 197
unto him, This day is salvation come to this house, forasmuch as he also
is a son of Abraham. For the son of man is come to seek and to save
that which was lost." Now, the salvation that came to his house, ap-
pears to me to be evidently his own salvation. Zaccheus had been a
man notoriously a sinner. The people all murmured, even when Jesus
proposed to be his guest. The Lord touched the heart of Zaccheus,
and enabled him to give in his confession — the clearest evidence of his
conversion. The Lord, therefore, recognises him publicly before the
people who murmured, and declared that Zaccheus was not only worthy
of being his host, but that he who was among the chief of sinners, was
now a member of his kingdom : salvation was now come to that house
which the crowd looked upon as so unworthy to receive the Messiah. It
was now the house of a saved sinner. Jesus next gave the reason for
saying that salvation was come to that house : " He also is a son of
Abraham." That he was a natural descendant of Abraham, there was
no question ; but now he is a son of Abraham's faith. The Lord Jesus
closes with a reason that confirms this view : " For the Son of man is
come to seek and to save that which was lost." As if he had said,
" Think it not strange that Zaccheus is saved, and that I have called
him a son of Abraham. He was a notorious sinner, indeed, but I have
come to save such."
Many suppose that the phrase, " Salvation is come to this house,"
means that others in the house had believed ; or that it was an intima-
tion that they would believe. As far as concerns the question of baptism,
I have not the smallest objection to either of these views. My objection
is, that they are not the import of the passage. I am quite willing to
admit, I am joyful in believing, that when the Gospel comes to a house,
it generally spreads. But this is no foundation for baptizing an unbe-
lieving family, and does not seem to be contained in this passage. If
salvation comes to a house, let the house be baptized as far as the salva-
tion is known to reach.
But by what authority does Mr. Ewing make the exception, with re-
spect to those who refuse the ordinance, and blaspheme ? Children have
no right to refuse ; and slaves may be forced to submit. Those must
all be baptized with the household. Ah, Mr. Ewing ! is such a house-
hold as you represent to be entitled to baptism, at all like the house of
the jailer, and the house of Stephanas? How unlike to your commis-
sion to baptize, is the commission of Christ ! Christ says, " believe and
be baptized :" Mr. Ewing says, " baptize all the unbelievers of a believ-
er's house, except they refuse." Is it not a fearful thing to have on
record before heaven and earth, a document at such variance with the
commission of Christ? I know Christ will forgive the ignorance of his
people ; but to teach his children to err from his commandments, is not
the way to gain ten cities in the day of judgment.
Was there ever anything so absurd as to stretch the commission to
baptize, by the use of an indefinite word in the history of the execution
of the commission? Must not the commission limit this indefinite
word ? Does not Mr. Ewing, does not Dr. Wardlaw, show examples that
justify such limitation of indefinite or general language? Why do they
198 THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM.
contend, that there may be infants in a believing house, though they do
not believe ; when they will not allow that there may have been infants
in a baptized house, without being baptized ? None can be baptized,
according to the commission, but believers : the phraseology about the
households is perfectly consistent with this, according to daily use in all
nations : why then conjure up a difficulty when not a shadow of diffi-
culty exists? An infidel, who read the Scriptures, just to learn what,
was actually the practice on the subject in the apostles' days, would not
find a moment's delay from these households. He would at once see
that the word household may extend to every individual of the family,
or admit of certain exceptions, according to known limitations. The
limitation of the households he would find in the commission. He
would never dream that the apostles would baptize any but such as are
commanded to be baptized.
Let it be recollected, that we stand on the defensive in this matter ;
and that it is perfectly sufficient for our purpose, if the term household
will admit the limitation for which we contend. To serve our oppo-
nents, it must be proved that infants were in the families. Even this will
not serve them. They might have been in the households, yet not have
been baptized. But was it even proved that infants were baptized, it
would be a baptism different from that of the commission, and could
not stand in its room. Even in such a case, I would call on all who
believe to be baptized with the baptism of the commission.
" The case of the little children," says Mr. Ewing, " brought to Jesus,
as narrated, Matt. xix. 13 — 15, entirely agrees with this view," namely,
that the disciples of our Lord baptized infants. There must truly be a
great scarcity of proof when it is sought in such a passage as this. No
view of which this transaction is capable, has any bearing on the subject.
We might as well seek a warrant for infant baptism in Magna Charta,
or the Bill of Rights. Infant salvation does not imply infant baptism.
Baptism is an exhibition of the faith of the Gospel ; and of course can-
not belong to any but those who appear to believe the Gospel. But in-
fants are saved without the Gospel. These infants are not brought to
Jesus for baptism, nor for any ordinance of the Gospel, but to be blessed
by him. Can they not be blessed by Jesus without baptism? This pas-
sage, then, can have no concern with the subject. "True," says Mr.
Ewing, " baptism is not mentioned in the passage, but our Saviour's
condescension, which the passage does mention, and which he so beau-
tifully displays both to children and to parents, is by no means exclusive
of the baptism of the former, but apparently in addition to it." Our Sa-
inour's condescension, here mentioned, not exclusive of the baptism of in-
fants ! What an argument! Does our Saviour's condescension to
children, suppose that they must have been baptized ? It is a shame for
human understanding to urgre such arguments as these. The children
taken up into the arms of Christ could speak nothing more childish.
Divine truths we must receive like children, but if we receive infant
baptism on the authority of such arguments, we must receive it as sim-
pletons. Christ commands us to be like little children, but he never
cemmands us to be idiots. " In malice be ye children, but in under-
THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 199
standing be men." The Gospel itself must have evidence ; and we are
required to believe nothing without evidence. Is our Saviour's conde-
scension in blessing children any evidence that they ought to be baptized?
This passage does not, indeed, exclude children from baptism ; and
many a thousand passages might be quoted, that do not exclude infants
from baptism. But is every passage that does not forbid infant baptism,
a proof that infants ought to be baptized? It seems, however, that this
passage does more than not exclude infants from baptism, though, in
such a lack of evidence, that itself is a great deal. The blessing is
apparently in addition to the baptism. Now, how this is apparent, is
what I cannot see ; and though I should wear out my eyes in the search,
I am afraid I shall never discover it here. The man who can see
infant baptism here, may descry the inhabitants of the moon with his
naked eye.
Mr. Ewing quotes a passage in his note, that is subtle without pene-
tration. Of such is the kingdom of heaven, " that is to say," says Mr.
Hallet, " the kingdom of God belongs to, or comprehends such infants as
these." No, Mr. Hallet, to say this, is to say what the passage does not
say. It is not said, that the kingdom of God belongs to such, or compre-
hends such; but that the kingdom of God is of such, that is, such persons
constitute this kingdom. If we are not pleased with this paraphrase,
Mr. Hallet gives us another, which must be abundantly edifying ; " or,"
says he, " if any one would have the words so stiffly rendered, Such's is
the kingdom of God, like, Theirs is the kingdom of heaven, Matt. v. 3."
But the latter passage ought to be translated, " of them is the kingdom
of heaven." The kingdom of heaven consists of the poor in spirit, and
of the poor in spirit only. There is not another in the kingdom. The
meaning is not that the poor in spirit will obtain heaven as their inherit-
ance ; but that there is none in the kingdom of heaven but the poor in
spirit. Neither of these passages imports that the kingdom of heaven is
the property of such persons, but that such persons constitute the whole
kingdom. There is not one in heaven but the poor in spirit ; nor is
there one in heaven who is not such as the children. However, were it
even supposed that the expression was, " the kingdom of heaven belongs
to such," the import of the term such is not altered. Even such's is the
kingdom, makes no difference. Every way in which the words can be
understood, imports that the heirs of the kingdom are such as children —
not that they are children. Observe the difference between the expres-
sion, Matt. v. 3, from the expression in this place. In the former it is
" of them," in the latter it is " of such." The kingdom of heaven is of
the poor in spirit, and of them only : but it is not of children only, but
of those who are such as children. They resemble children in their
character. Had of them been here used instead of of such, it would have
imported that none but children are members of Christ's kingdom ; it
would have said, that all children are members of Christ's kingdom, and
that none but children were included in that kingdom.
Mr. Hallet says, that if we understand the term such to refer not to
the infants, but to persons resembling them, it will be impossible to
make out the force of our Saviour's argument. But let what will be
200 THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM.
the consequence, this is actually what our Saviour has said ; and nothing
else can the words import. " The kingdom of heaven is of such" can-
not possibly mean that the kingdom of heaven is of them. The term
such does not signify identity — cannot signify identity, but likeness.
Besides, to understand it so, would imply, that none but children could
be saved. For if the kingdom of God is of children, by consequence
none but children are of the kingdom. I am not bound, then, to
satisfy Mr. Hallet with a view of the passage that will make out the
force of our Saviour's argument. I will show him what concerns this
argument, and I will insist that so far the meaning must be what I con-
tend for. After ascertaining what can be definitely and certainly ascer-
tained, let us then endeavour to see the force of the argument. But to
see this is not necessary to know the other with the utmost assurance.
" According to these men," says Mr. Hallet, " our Saviour would have
said the same thing, if men had brought him lambs or doves." But if
Mr. Hallet would exercise a little discrimination, he would see a differ-
ence. The things in which the disciples of Christ are here supposed to
resemble children, are not to be found in lambs or doves. Lambs and
doves are, to a certain extent, fit emblems of the people of God ; but
for the purpose of our Lord on this occasion, they were totally unsuit-
able. Children are of the human race, and therefore it is important to
know whether" they are capable of being blessed by Christ. Now, that
they are capable of being brought to Christ, and of being blessed by
him, is known from Christ's conduct towards them ; though it is not
expressed, nor necessarily implied in the term such. That term implies
only that there is a likeness between his disciples and children. But
this likeness is a likeness in rational and moral properties. It is a like-
ness of temper, disposition, or character of mind. This could not be
found in lambs or doves. In mere harmlessness doves may afford a like-
ness. Therefore it is said, " Be ye harmless as doves." But the moral
qualities here referred to, are not to be found in lambs or doves ; these
are teachableness, humility, &c. That this is the reference, is clear from
the fact as recorded by Mark x. 15. " And they brought young children
to him, that he should touch them : and his disciples rebuked those that
brought them. But when Jesus saw it, he was displeased, and said unto
them, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not : for
of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall
not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.
Is it not evident, that the point of likeness between children and the
disciples of Christ, is in their teachableness? Here also it is evident,
that the term such refers to likeness — not identity. They who receive
the kingdom of God must receive it as children, but they are not all child-
ren. So, then, Mr. Hallet, your lambs and your doves will not suit this
passage. I will receive as a little child anything that the Lord teaches;
but your explanation of the term such, even a child cannot receive. I
must renounce my understanding altogether, before I can admit such to
import identity, instead of likeness.
The same thing is evident from Matt, xviii. 1. — " At the same time
came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom
THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 20l
of heaven ? And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in
the midst of them, and said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be con-
verted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom
of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little
child, the same is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoso
shall receive one such little child in my name, receiveth me. But whoso
shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better
for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were
drowned in the depth of the sea." Here we see that the disciples must
be like children in humility. In this sense, the disciples are children.
But in humility, lambs and doves could be no figures. That they were
capable of being blessed, depends on their being human persons.
" The meaning seems to be," says Mr. Hallet, " of such kind of
infants as these is the kingdom of God, that is, of such infants as have
been partakers of the seal of the covenant, of such infants as have been
baptized, or, at least, circumcised like these." No, Mr. Hallet, this is
a forgery ; this is a vile and wicked forgery. Thousands have been
hanged for forgery, who have not made such alterations on. writings as
this makes on the book of God. There is nothing either expressed or
implied with respect to the baptism or the circumcision of the infants
brought to Jesus ; nor does what our Lord says apply to those children
more than any other children. It is not, Suffer these little baptized or
circumcised children to come, but suffer little children, any little children,
to come to me. Does not the parallel passage, Mark x. 15, apply to
children in general ? It is the temper of children to which our Lord
gives his approbation, and the things referred to are found in all children.
Does not the illustration show this? Does not Matt, xviii. 1, confirm
this? Why does Mr. Hallet look for a reason of approbation, not only
not mentioned by Jesus himself, but different from that which Jesus has
mentioned ? All children possess what Jesus here approves. But while
these dispositions of children are such as to afford a proper figure to
represent the teachableness, humility, &c. of the disciples of Jesus, there
is no reason to suppose that they are such as are entirely conformable to
the law of God. There may be something in them that will need the
atonement of the blood of Christ, while they afford a likeness to the
character of the disciples. Indeed, the dispositions of children are not
considered here in reference to God, but in reference to men. Children
believe their parents implicitly ; and they are comparatively unambitious.
But they are no more ready to believe God than adults are. The appro-
bation, therefore, of infants contained in our Lord's words, does not
imply that they are teachable and humble in the things of God. Our
Lord may approve of children here, just as he loved the rich young man
in unbelief. The young man had lived in such a manner, that in his
own view he had kept the law of God from his youth up. To live so,
was commendable, though he was in error. Accordingly, " Jesus
beholding him, loved him."
But in whatever way the thing may be explained, the ground of our
Lord's approbation of children, is their teachableness, humility, &c, and
this as it respects all children equally. If Mr. Hallet will not take
26
202 THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM.
edification in my way of understanding the force of our Lord's argument,
let him look for something to please himself. That the term such has
the reference for which I contend, does not admit doubt.
That children are capable of being brought to Christ and blessed by
him, is clearly established by this passage ; and in this light it is of
inestimable value. Let every Christian, then, bring his children to Christ.
Let him bring them to Christ in his prayers night and day ; for their
salvation is beyond every earthly consideration. Let him bring them to
Christ in his word, and in every thing in which Christ has appointed
them to be brought to him. But let not Christians think, that to prac-
tise on their infants a religious ordinance of human invention, is to bring
them to Christ, but to increase their own sin. Had man appointed an
ordinance of imposition of hands on children, from the authority of this
passage, it would not have been so strange ; but to argue that children
must be baptized, because they may be blessed by Jesus, has no colour
of plausibility. The whole argument may be reduced to a single sen-
tence. Children may be blessed without being baptized, therefore the
blessing of the children by Jesus is no argument for infant baptism.
In short, whether our Lord's expression imports that the kingdom of
God consists of such, or is the property of such, the term such must
necessarily mean not them, but persons like them — of such as children,
not of children such as these. The ground of our Lord's approbation of
children is their resemblance to his disciples in certain characteristics of
mind, which are to be found only in rational creatures ; and they are
permitted to come to Christ, because they are capable of being blessed
by him.
The fact here recorded, however, instead of affording evidence for
infant baptism, affords a presumption against it. If infants were every
day brought to be baptized, why did the apostles object to their being
brought to be blessed? Mr. Ewing has been aware of this difficulty,
and has obviated it by a resource worthy of Ulysses, " for wiles
renowned." " The disciples of Christ," says he, " never thought of
forbidding the children to be brought to them, which they would be,
(John iv. 2,) in order to be baptized. They only objected to their being
brought also to their Master, that he should put his hands on them,
and pray." Now, is this a thought that would ever occur to any simple
mind in reading the passage? Is there anything that intimates a
double purpose in bringing the children, — first for their baptism to the
apostles, and next to Jesus for his blessing ? What an eagle-eye must
he have that can discover these things ! But there is here a distinction
never once made in the history of Jesus, — a distinction between coming
to him and to his attending disciples. There is no instance of coming to
his apostles, for anything in his presence. Jesus indeed did not person-
ally baptize ; but he baptized by his disciples. All things were done
by his directions, and whoever came for baptism came to Jesus, as much
as for anything else. This distinction, however, if admitted, will not
serve. Still, it is asked, if children were baptized, why did the apostles
object to their coming to Christ to be blessed ? Jesus vindicates the
propriety of bringing children to him, by arguments that equally
THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 203
apply whether it is to himself personally, or to his apostles acting for
him.
But let this passage be ever so finely wire-drawn, it cannot include
infant baptism. It applies to children in general, and not merely to the
children of believers ; and though the children of believers only were
included, they may be brought to Christ for his blessing without being
baptized.
"The language of the Acts of the Apostles," says Mr. Ewing, "on
the subject of baptism, previously to the history of the propagation of
the Gospel among the Gentiles, in which family baptism is first men-
tioned, is always equally comprehensive with that of the Gospels," Acts
ii. 38, 39. On the subject of baptism ! Does the baptism enforced
in the passage referred to, at all include any but those who repent ?
" Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized, every one of
you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall
receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and
to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord
our God shall call." Does this imply the baptism of any but of those
who repent? They who repent, and they only, are to be baptized.
" Repent, and be baptized." Can language be more clear? Are they
not to be baptized into the remission of sins? Does not this show, that
in baptism, repentance and remission of sins are supposed with respect
to the baptized ? They are not to be baptized, that repentance and
remission of sins may follow. Instead of proving infant baptism, this
passage proves that none ought to be baptized but such as repent, and
have their sins forgiven. Is it not expressly said, that all who are thus
baptized shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost? The promise is
indeed said to be to your children; but is it not also said, that it is to
all that are afar off? And is it not, with respect to both, confined to
those whom the Lord shall call? Children denote posterity, and not
merely infant children ; and the promise of the Spirit is to them and to
their posterity, and to all that are afar off, only on their repentance.
It is not said, that when a man repents, his children shall receive the
gift of the Holy Ghost, whether they repent or not ; for this is false.
His children, and all that are afar off, shall receive this gift, just as he
himself received it, when they repent and are baptized. Does Mr.
Ewing believe, that when a man believes the Gospel, his infants, and all
the unbelievers of his house, receive remission of sins, and the gift of
the Holy Ghost? If not, there is no ground to give them that baptism
that implies both remission of sins, and the gift of the Holy Ghost.
This promise is to the children, just as it is to the parents; and it is to
all that are afar off, just as it is to parents and children, on their repent-
ance : and it is actually communicated only to those whom the Lord
calls. Mr. Ewing says, " that when the apostle added, ' To all that are
afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call,' the meaning
plainly is, that the promise which was to the Jews first, and to their
children, should be to the Gentiles also, and to their children." No, Mr.
Ewing, this is not the plain meaning, — this is a very forced and
unnatural meaning. There is no doubt that the promise here spoken of
204 THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM.
is to the children of the Gentiles, just as it was to the children of the
Jews ; that is, on their repentance, they shall be made partakers of the
gift of the Spirit. But the words referred to have nothing to do with
this. The last clause is a limitation of the promise with respect to the
three classes mentioned, restricting it to such of each as the Lord shall
call. This is as clear as language can make it ; and nothing but per-
verseness can mistake it. The promise is unto you ; the promise is like-
wise to your children ; the promise is likewise to all that are afar off.
But it is to none of any class, but such as the Lord shall call. The
three distinct classes are coupled by and — you and your children, and
all afar off. The last clause is not coupled with the rest by and, but
added to the whole, as a limitation. And does not the whole word of
God confirm this view ? Do any receive the gift of the Spirit, but such
as are called ? Do the unbelieving children and servants of a believer
receive this gift? It is strange that any Christian should contend for a
view of this passage, so unfounded and so forced.
But if Mr. Ewing will be so perverse as to hold to this view, it will
profit him nothing as to infant baptism. Whatever the promise here
may import, to whomsoever it is made, the baptism here spoken of, is to
such only as repent. Besides, even according to his own explanation
of the passage, he must view all the infants and unbelievers of a believer's
house, as possessing the gift of the Spirit. This is a species of unbe-
lievers unknown to the word of God, — unbelievers possessing the Holy
Spirit.
Nothing but perverseness, and an obstinate attachment to a system,
could make our opponents rely on an argument founded on the indefi-
nite phrase, your children. Does not God promise to " pour out his
Spirit upon all flesh?" Might it not be as plausibly argued from this,
that the Spirit must be given to every individual of the human race, as
that children here must mean either all children, or infant children?
Even if no explanatory and limiting phrase had been added, the indefi-
nite term must be limited by other known truth. But our opponents
are so perverse, as to contend for the unlimited sense of an indefinite
term, after it has been expressly limited in the passage itself by the Holy
Spirit.
Dr. Wardlaw asks, How would a Jew understand the term children
in this passage? I answer, no man of common sense can mistake its
meaning, if he takes the meaning from the words. The apostle explains
himself, so as not to be innocently mistaken by either Jew or Gentile.
Paul says, " Men and brethren, children of the stock of Abraham, and
whosoever among you feareth God, to you is the word of this salvation
sent." Did not the Jews believe that the blessings of the Messiah's
kingdom would be confined to themselves ? How then, I might ask,
would they understand this language? Would they not have much
greater reason to conclude from this, that Paul confined salvation to the
Jews, than that Peter extended the gift of the Spirit to the whole offspring
of believers, without any respect to their faith ? He says nothing here
to guard them from this conception. But Peter expressly limits the
term children, as applicable only to those called by the Lord. Is the
THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 205
Gospel sent only to the Jews, and such as feared God? Is it not sent
to all? Yet Paul, on this occasion, speaks of it as sent to the stock of
Abraham, and such among them as feared God. Just so Peter speaks
of the promise to them and their children, but he explicitly limits the
blessing to those whom God shall call. The most prejudiced Jew could
not innocently mistake this language.
"Are we, then, to suppose," says Dr. Wardlaw, " that this ' holy man
of God, speaking as he was moved by the Holy Ghost,' would, without
explanation or restriction," &c. Without explanation or restriction !
How can Dr. Wardlaw use this language ? Is not the last clause an ex-
press limitation? — "as many as the Lord our God shall call." But
even had there been no limitation, it is rash in Dr. Wardlaw to use such
language. Jesus himself used expressions that were capable of being
misunderstood. Prejudices are no excuse for perverting the word of
God. If the Jews took less or more out of the words of the apostles
than they express, they were blameable.
Does Dr. Wardlaw believe, that when the head of a family receives
the Gospel, all his infants receive the Spirit ? If not, why does he bap-
tize them on account of this promise? Even if they did receive the
Spirit, they are not to be baptized by this passage, except they repent.
Does he say that the promise implies that they will repent ? But the
promise is, that penitents shall receive the Spirit, and not that the chil-
dren of such shall repent in time to come. Besides, if there was a pro-
mise that all the children of all believers would repent, this would not
entitle them to that baptism that supposes repentance.
But if your children respects children, without limitation from the
concluding clause, then the promise is, that all the children of a believer
will receive the gift of the Spirit on his believing. Does this imply that
all the children of a believer believe also at the same time ? If not, does
the promise import that unbelieving adult children will receive the Spirit?
According to our opponents, this promise secures the gift of the Spirit
to the children of believers, as well as to themselves. If so, except it is
a false promise, such children will receive the Spirit. Unless, then,
all the children of a believer receive the gift of the Spirit, as well as
himself, the gift of the Spirit cannot here be promised to his children,
except they believe.
Let it be observed, that the gift of the Spirit, as respects his miracu-
lous operations, was given to their children with the limitation for which
we contend. Some of them, indeed, might be children under age, but
none of them were unbelieving children. They were old enough to
prophesy : "And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will
pour out my Spirit upon all flesh : and your sons and your daughters
shall prophesy." This is the promise to which Peter refers, and it was
fulfilled, as far as concerned miraculous gifts, in the gift of prophecy
conferred on their sons and daughters. Surely these prophesying sons
and daughters, were believing sons and daughters, — not unbelieving sons
and daughters, nor infant sons and daughters. Now, does not the very
nature of the gift promised to their sons and daughters, limit the gift to
believing sons and daughters? Nothing can be more clear. But why
206 THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM.
do we waste time in ascertaining the nature and extent of this promise,
or of any other promise ? Neither this promise, nor any other promise,
respects baptism. For argument's sake, let it be granted that the Spirit
is promised to all the seed of all believers ; this does not imply their
baptism, except it implies faith. The commission limits baptism to
Delievers ; and the baptism that Peter here preaches, is limited to those
who repent. Whatever a wild fancy may extort from the promise men-
tioned, it has no concern with baptism. That the promise of the gift
of the Spirit is limited to those whom the Lord shall call, with respect
to them, their children, and those afar off, is as clear as the light of
heaven ; but let it be extended as it may, baptism is not attached to it.
The passage has no possible bearing on the subject. Our opponents
have a popish perverseness in clinging to arguments that have a thou-
sand and a thousand times been shown to be inefficient, and which they
themselves represent, not as bearing the weight of their conclusion, but
as having merely some favourable aspect toward it. It is a most vexa-
tious thing, that, in the dispute about infant baptism, the greatest part
of the arguments brought to support it, have no concern with baptism
at all. Is it not evident, on the very face of the business, that infant
baptism is not in the Scriptures, when its advocates are obliged to shel-
ter it under such subterfuges? Had they real evidence, they have
talents to exhibit it. Had they only one sound argument, they would
not degrade their understanding by resting on arguments that have no
reference to the subject.
" Precisely in the same strain," says Mr. Ewing, " and almost in the
same words, the apostle Paul asserts the interest which believers from
among the Gentiles have, in the family promise made to the Jews; and
in the same way as Peter does, he connects this family promise with
family baptism : Gal. iii. 13, 14, 26-29." Family promise, family bap-
tism! How are such things to be found in the passages referred to?
Is not the blessing of Abraham, that comes on the Gentiles, justification
by the faith of Abraham, in the seed of Abraham? Is it not such only
who receive "the promise of the Spirit?" Do any but believers receive
the promise of the Spirit? Is it not here expressly said, that the "pro-
mise of the Spirit" is " through faith ?" Is it not expressly said, that
the blessing of Abraham has come on the Gentiles, that " we might
receive the promise of the Spirit through faith?" Can this blessing,
then, extend farther than the promise of the Spirit connected with it,
and to be given through it ? This promise is confined to faith, which
clearly determines what the blessing is, and strongly confirms our view
of the parallel passage from Acts ii. 39.
But Mr. Ewing says that Paul here, as Peter does, connects this
promise with family baptism. No, Mr. Ewing, neither of them connects
this promise with family baptism ; there is not a shadow of foundation
for such an assertion. Peter says nothing of the baptism of the children
to whom the promise is made. There is no doubt that such children
would be baptized as well as their parents, because they were believers,
and had received the gift of the Spirit through faith. But this is not said
in the passage, nor implied any other way than as, like their parents,
THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 207
they repented, and through faith received the gift of the Spirit. In
Gal. hi. 14, even believer baptism is not spoken of as connected with the
blessing of Abraham, though it is truly connected with it. In ver. 26,
27, the apostle speaks of the import of baptism, but not as connected
with ver. 14. But where is family baptism ? How can it be extorted
from ver. 27 ? Mr. Ewing might as well assert that family baptism is
connected with the breach of the sixth commandment. Shall any man
suffer his understanding to be imposed on, by submitting to believe that
family baptism is spoken of in such passages as this ? Can a righteous
cause require the aid of such support? Give me Scripture for infant
baptism, and I will receive it. Give me any reasoning that is founded
on a basis of truth, and I will weigh it. But I can have no respect for
a mode of reasoning that founds on nothing, or on untrue assumption.
A man would read himself blind, before he would find anything like
family baptism in Gal. iii. It cannot be truth that requires learned and
ingenious men to adopt such a mode of defence. Mr. Ewing, either
yield, or give us argument. Do not continue to force and misrepresent
the word of God, to sanction the traditions of men. You are flounder-
ing in a quagmire, — every plunge to relieve yourself, will only sink you
more deeply.
" Unless we admit," says Mr. Ewing, " that infants, nay, every relation,
both of affinity and descent, which can be considered as his property,
are interested in the privileges of a believer's house, I see not a satisfac-
tory meaning of 1 Cor. vii. 12 — 14." This is an astonishing avowal.
Mr. Ewing believes that all the unbelieving children of a believer, and
his unbelieving wife, have from him a right to all the ordinances of
Christ. Well, this is extravagant, but it is only consistent. Others
have founded an argument for infant baptism on this passage, but they
inconsistently refused to admit the argument with respect to the unbe-
lieving wife. Mr. Ewing has perceived that the passage cannot be
consistently quoted for the one and not for the other, and that it applies
equally to the Lord's supper : he therefore, instead of giving up the
argument, as proving too much, boldly adopts all its consequences. The
unbelieving wife, then, is to be baptized, and to be admitted to all the
privileges of a believer's house. This privilege, it seems, is granted on
the right of property. The unbelieving wife is to be baptized as the
property of her husband. Slaves have a similar claim. To refute so
monstrous a position, is anything necessary but to state it? Is this like
the kingdom of Christ? Can anything be more contrary to the Scripture
accounts of baptism and the Lord's supper? Faith is necessary to entitle
to admission into a church ; faith is necessary to eat the Lord's supper
without condemnation ; faith is necessary for baptism. How, then, can
an unbelieving wife, or unbelieving children, be admitted to such privi-
leges by this passage ? Can any passage in the word of God give a
warrant to persons to eat and drink condemnation to themselves? Can
any passage warrant the admission of unbelievers into a church from
which the Lord has excluded them? Can any passage sanction the
baptism of unbelievers, when all the accounts of baptism require faith?
Can any passage give countenance to persons evidently in their sins, to
208 THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM.
be admitted to an ordinance that figuratively exhibits their sins as, by
faith in the blood of Christ, already washed away ? This is an extrava-
gance that, in a person who has any notion of Christian fellowship, and
the nature of a church, can never be exceeded.
With respect to the passage referred to, it is usually and sufficiently
explained, by an allusion to Ezra x. 3, 44; Neh. xiii. 23, 24. The
sanctification referred to, must be legitimacy according to the laic of God,
Such marriages were not lawful to the Jews, and both the wives and
their children were put away. It is the duty of the disciples to marry
in the Lord ; but even if they transgress that law, or are converted after
marriage, they are not, like the Jews, to put away their wives and child-
ren on repentance. The marriage is to continue, and the relation is
sanctified, just as their food is sanctified or blessed to their use. Now
this is an important, a most important thing. As Jesus commands his
disciples to marry in the Lord, had no provision been made, every
marriage contrary to this, must be given up on repentance, just as forni-
cation and adultery ; and the offspring of such marriages could not be
considered as the children of marriage, according to God's institution.
It is said in reply to this, that even the marriages of unbelievers are
lawful, and the offspring legitimate. Certainly — because they are ac-
cording to the law both of God and man. But as Christ commands his
people to marry in the Lord, to marry otherwise is contrary to God's
law. Neither such marriage, then, nor the offspring of it, would be
legitimate according to the law of God, except by this provision. The
marriage might be legitimate according to the law of man, and the
children legitimate according to the law of man, but neither would be
legitimate according to the law of God. This provision, then, is most
bountiful and kind. The believer, by remaining in his marriage with
the unbeliever, does not continue in sin, as he would by continuing in
fornication. His marriage is sanctified to him. I can see no difficulty
in the passage ; but if any will choose to understand it otherwise, let
them have it their own way. In no view of it, can it countenance the
baptism of infants or unbelievers. This sanctification, whatever it is, is
a marriage of sanctification, and not the sanctification of the Spirit
through the belief of the truth, which is the only sanctification that en-
titles to any Christian privilege. If such infants were even as holy as the
infant John the Baptist, it would not imply their baptism. They may
possess the holiness that will fit them for heaven, without entitling them
to baptism. Baptism is for believers, and only for believers.
So, then, Mr. Ewing can see no meaning in this passage, unless it is a
warrant to give to unbelievers those ordinances that Jesus has provided
for believers, and from which he has excluded unbelievers. If this
passage will give a right to introduce the unbelieving wife and children
of a believer into a church, and to give them the ordinance appointed
for believers, — if it will enable such unbelieving wife and children to eat
the Lord's supper without eating and drinking condemnation ; may it not
also introduce them into heaven on the same ground ? It is said, " he
that believeth not shall be condemned ;" but if faith can be dispensed
with in the ordinance of Christ, in which it is required, may it not also
THE SUBJECTS OP BAPTISM. 209
be dispensed with in this threatening? The same explanation that will
baptize an unbeliever, or admit him to the Lord's supper, will introduce
him into heaven, in defiance of the condemnation pronounced against
him by the Saviour himself. What a wretched thing it is for a Chris-
tian to be given up by God to justify the traditions of men, and to fight
against the ordinance of Christ ! How wide is the range of this error !
How much of the word of God does its defence oblige its advocates to
pervert!
But this is a new and a strange ground of baptism — baptism on the
ground of property ! The unbelieving wife is baptized, not, it seems, in
virtue of the promises of the Abrahamic covenant, but because she is
the property of her believing husband. The promises of the Abrahamic
covenant are to his seed, but the wife is included only as property. Can
any idea be more abhorrent to the nature of Christ's kingdom ? Would
not this baptize the whole dominions of an absolute king? I call upon
all Christians to reflect on this monstrous avowal. Is it not self-evident
that the cause that demands this defence, is not the cause of God and
truth ? That the baptism of the unbelieving wife is the necessary con-
sequence of the argument for infant baptism brought from this passage,
Mr. Ewing sees to be inevitable ; and therefore avows the consequence
rather than forego the argument. It is, then, utterly vain for more timid
minds to attempt to hold the argument and refuse the consequence.
Mr. Ewing being judge, the baptism of the infant must be accompanied
with that of the unbelieving wife, and the unbelieving adults of the
family. Let them, then, choose which they will ; they must take all or
nothing.
Well, suppose they are all determined to adopt the shocking conse-
quences avowed by Mr. Ewing, their hardihood will show only their
disposition — it will not save their cause. This holiness of the unbe-
lieving wife and children, is a holiness not of the truth nor of the Spirit ;
and therefore cannot entitle to any ordinance of Christ's kingdom. It
is a holiness of marriage, which is an ordinance of God for his people, in
common with all men. It is a holiness which is here expressly said to
belong to unbelievers ; and therefore can have nothing to do with ordi-
nances that were intended for believers. It is a holiness that demands
the believing husband or wife to live with the unbelieving, not to baptize
such. The question treated of is solely this. There is no reference to
any ordinance of the kingdom of Christ. Why, then, should this unbe-
lieving holiness admit to the ordinance of Christ's kingdom, more than
it will admit to heaven? All the ordinances of Christ imply, that the
partakers of them have the holiness of the truth by the Spirit. If this
can be dispensed with as to an avowed unbeliever, the declaration " with-
out holiness no man shall see the Lord," may equally be dispensed with
for his salvation. The same reasoning that will baptize the unbelieving
wife, will introduce her into heaven as an unbeliever.
But why are unbelievers of this description baptized rather than any
other unbelievers? Because, says Mr. Ewing, salvation is come to the
house. Salvation come to the house! But it seems it has not yet reached
the wife ; and if it had reached her, it may not have reached the children.
27
210 THE SUBJECTS OP BAPTISM.
The wife is here said to be sanctified while an unbeliever. Then salva-
tion has not come to her, except the Gospel is false, and she can be
saved as an unbeliever. Why, then, should she be baptized, or receive
the Lord's supper, which supposes that she has been already made a
partaker of salvation? But it may be said, she will yet believe. I
reply, although this were certain, it would be no reason to give her an
ordinance that implies faith and sanctification of the Spirit through the
truth. This, however, is not certain, for the reason by which the hus-
band is urged to live with her as an unbeliever, is, not the certainty that
she will yet believe, but the mere possibility of this. " For what know-
est thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or, how knowest
thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?" Here the mere possi-
bility of the future salvation of the unbelieving husband, or wife, through
the means of the other party, is urged as a reason to continue in the
marriage relation. Nothing can be a clearer confutation of the opinion
of our opponents with respect to the meaning of the expression, " salva-
tion is come to this house," than this passage. The utmost that the
apostle states as a ground of not forsaking the unbelieving partner, is,
that it may turn out to the salvation of such ; there is not a single promise
pleaded. If this is a ground for baptism, we might baptize any person;
for we do not know but he may yet receive the truth. What a monstrous
prostitution of an ordinance of Christ does this vindicate ! It gives the
ordinances of Christ to avowed unbelievers, if they will submit to receive
them ! Am I reasoning with Mr. Ewing ? Have I understood him ?
Will he hold infant baptism at so immense a price? This determined
obstinacy reminds one of the desperate perseverance of the Jews in the
destruction of Jerusalem. Is Mr. Ewing resolved to overturn the whole
spiritual nature of Christ's kingdom, rather than surrender this fortress
of the man of sin?
But I appeal to the common sense of all my readers. If it had been
the custom to baptize the unbelieving husband or wife on the faith of
the believing partner, would there ever have been a question with re-
spect to the propriety of living with such ? If the unbelieving husband
or wife was admitted to baptism, would it ever be thought that it was
contrary to the holiness of marriage to dwell with such a husband or
wife? Would they suppose, that a holiness that admitted to the ordi-
nances of Christ's kingdom, was not sufficient for the sanctification of
marriage?
Mr. Ewing has had the boldness to carry the principles that justify
infant baptism to their proper extent. But he has done no more. Many
persons who hold the argument from this passage, will be shocked with
his sentiment. It is impossible to vindicate the baptism of infants from
this holiness, without affording equal ground for the baptism of the
unbelieving husband or wife. Mr. Ewing has the perspicacity to see
this, and he has the hardihood to adopt it. He is just like Mr. Hume
with respect to the philosophy of his time. Mr. Hume, in rearing a
system of universal scepticism, did no more than carry the acknowledged
principles of philosophy to their just consequences. Granting him his
first principles, which were universally taken for granted, he, with the
THE SUBJECTS OP BAPTISM. 211
greatest ease, overturned heaven and earth, matter and spirit. He
shocked the world by his conclusions ; and thus led, by an examination
of his first principles, to the overthrow of his doctrine. Specious or
popular error will never be abandoned, till it is driven into extravagance.
I hope Christians, who have any regard for the ordinances of Christ's
house, and the spirituality of his kingdom, will be led to examine, with
more attention, the foundations of a practice that requires such a justifi-
cation. If the whole ordinances of the house of God must be profaned;
if the spiritual fabric of his kingdom must be pulled down, in order to
make room for infant baptism, surely enlightened Christians may be
expected to renounce it. What an awful sentiment has Mr. Ewing
avowed ! Baptism into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of
the Holy Ghost, may — must be given to a professed worshipper of Jupiter,
Neptune, and Apollo, with the thousands of inferior gods, if the person
is the husband, or the wife, or the slave of a believer, and will condescend
to submit to this Christian institzition !!! To refute this, is it not enough
to state it ?
Section II. — Having considered the evidence arising from the com-
mission given to the apostles, and from the practice recorded in the New
Testament, I shall now exhibit the evidence that is derived from such
allusions to baptism, as may ascertain who were its subjects. In
general, it is quite apparent that baptism is not only a figure of the
washing away of sin, but that it is always supposed that the sins of
those who are baptized are already washed away. Now this can be
supposed of none but believers. Infants dying in infancy, if saved,
have their sins washed away. But millions of persons who have their
sins washed away, have not had them washed away in infancy. With
respect to such, then, baptism, that supposes sins already washed away,
could have no proper application in their infancy.
From John iii. 5, we see that baptism is a figure of regeneration.
They who are baptized are represented as born again. Now this is
peculiar to believers. Even if there was a certainty that an infant
would believe in future time, it would be no ground to baptize it. The
ordinance exhibits the baptized person as at the time born again.
The same thing appears from Titus iii. 5. " Not by works of right-
eousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us,
by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost." Here
baptism is called the bath or laver of regeneration. In the figure, it is
the place of birth. The baptized person is represented as born in the
ordinance, and is supposed to be already born, or renewed by the Spirit.
Now, this cannot belong to infants ; because infants dying in infancy are
not born of the truth, although they are saved by the blood of Christ ;
and if they were, how can they be known ? The multitude of saved
adults were not born again in infancy. To say that it may represent
that infants will be born again, is absurd, for the ordinance supposes
that they are born again. Besides, it is not certain that they will be
born again ; their new birth is not a matter of course. It would not
be the same ordinance, if, when applied to infants, it represented what
212 THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM.
might take place in futurity, and when applied to adults, it represented
what had taken place. None are represented in Scripture as born again,
except through the belief of the truth. "Being born again, not of
corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth
and abideth for ever. 1 Peter i. 23.
Agreeably to this Ananias says to Paul, "And now, why tarriest
thou ? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the
name of the Lord." Acts xxii. 16. Here we see baptism figuratively
washes away sins, and supposes that they are previously truly washed
away. Could our opponents say to the parents of the infant about to be
baptized, "Arise, and wash away the sins of thy infant?" The figure
supposes that they are washed away, not that they may, in future time,
be washed away.
Rom. vi. 3 — 5, and Col. ii. 12, explain baptism in a sense that suits
believers only. They who are baptized, are baptized into Christ's
death, as dying with him, and as rising with him to a new life.
They are viewed as already risen with him through faith. Can any
thing be more express than this? Are infants risen with Christ through
faith of the operation of God ? If not, they are not among the number
of those that were baptized.
In like manner, 1 Cor. xv. 29, all who are baptized are supposed, by
submitting to that ordinance, to profess faith in the resurrection. Of
this faith, infants are incapable.
In 1 Pet. iii. 21, they who are baptized are represented as having a
good conscience, which cannot apply to infants.
In Heb. x. 22, 23, baptism is supposed to proceed on a confession of
the faith or hope of the baptized persons, which being confessed in bap-
tism, they are exhorted to hold fast without wavering.
That the external washing, or figurative bath, belongs only to believers,
is seen in Ephes. v. 26 : " That he might sanctify and cleanse it by
the washing of tvater, or the laver of the water, by the word." Here the
bath of baptism is only the figure of that which is done by the word.
Believers are washed in baptism only in figure, but the reality of this
figure they have had in the belief of the word. Infants are not sancti-
fied by the word, and therefore have nothing to do with that laver of
water that is appointed for those who receive the word, to their salvation
and sanctification.
In 1 Cor. vi. 11, they who were baptized are supposed to be washed,
— to be sanctified and justified, in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by
the Spirit of our God.
We learn from Ephes. iv. 5, that there is but one baptism. Now, as
the baptism of the commission cannot possibly extend to infants, if there
is such a thing as infant baptism, there must be two baptisms. If, then,
there is but one baptism, there can be no infant baptism.
In 1 Cor. xii. 13, it is taken for granted, all who are baptized belong
to the body of Christ. " For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one
body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free ; and
have been all made to drink into one Spirit." They who are baptized
are supposed already to belong to the body of Christ ; and for this reason
they are baptized into it. They are, by baptism, externally united to
THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 213
that body, to which they are internally united by faith. None are here
supposed to be baptized upon the expectation, or probability, or possi-
bility, that they may yet belong to that body. They are baptized into
the body.
Nothing can be more express to this purpose than Gal. iii. 27, " For
as many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ."
Here, baptism is represented as implying a putting on of Christ : surely
this is peculiar to believers. Infants cannot put on Christ. Dr. Ward-
law thinks he has entirely overturned this argument, but his reply to it
has no just application. He quotes Gal. v. 2-6, as a parallel to the
above phraseology. " Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be cir-
cumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every
man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. Christ
is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the
law ; ye are fallen from grace." " In the 27th verse of the third chap-
ter of the same epistle, the apostle says, ' For as many of you as have
been baptized unto Jesus Christ, (or, ' ye whosoever have been bap-
tized unto Jesus Christ,') have put on Christ.' From this expression,"
says he, " it has been very confidently argued, that adults only were bap-
tized, because of ' putting on Christ,' adults only were capable. Now,
let the principle of interpretation, or of inference, be applied to the
passage quoted from the fiftli chapter. It is an address to adults : it
expresses things of which adults only iccre capable. Are we, then, to
infer from this, that adults only were circumcised? We certainly ought,
on the same principle on which we infer from the other, that adults alone
were baptized. There is precisely the same ground in the former case
as there is in the latter." No, Dr. Wardlaw, the cases, instead of being
parallel, are entirely dissimilar. In the one case, the apostle states the
import of an ordinance of God ; in the other he is not stating the import
of an ordinance of God. He does not allege that their submission to
baptism was an evidence of putting on Christ, for it is not such; but it
is a figure of putting on Christ. Some of them might not turn out to be
real believers, but in their baptism they were taken for such ; and with-
out this, baptism had to them no application. It is taken for granted
that all who are baptized have put on Christ. But it is not from the
import of circumcision, that the apostle alleges that they were unbeliev-
ers who submitted to it. Their receiving of circumcision, as necessary
to salvation, was evidence that they were not in the faith, Gal. v. 3. This
was decided evidence with respect to every one of them individually,
that he was yet in his sins. On the other hand, their baptism was no
evidence of their being in the faith ; but this was its import. No two
cases, then, can be more dissimilar than the two which Dr. Wardlaw
here pronounces to be precisely similar. Let Dr. Wardlaw bring an
example of similar phraseology, with respect to the import of any ordi-
nance of God, which yet is divinely appointed for those who are not
supposed to " put on Christ," and he will do something to his purpose.
Were the Jews ever addressed with such language as this? Was it
ever said, " whosoever of you have been circumcised in your flesh, have
been renewed in your hearts by the Spirit of God?" No, this could not
have been said ; for circumcision never imported this.
214 THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM.
Section III. — The Abrahamic Covenant. — As infant baptism can-
not be found in the New Testament, its advocates have endeavoured to
find a cover for it in the Old. They think they have discovered this in
the covenant that God made with Abraham. Of course, that covenant
has been much discussed on this subject, and variously explained, to
suit the respective sentiments of the different parties. It is lamentable,
that the people of God should allow their sentiments on one subject, to
influence their decisions, so as to perplex the plainest things. Nothing
but the supposed connexion of the Abrahamic covenant with the sub-
ject of infant baptism, could produce such a diversity of opinion in ex-
plaining that covenant. I have read much that I cannot approve, on both
sides of this question; and I cannot but think, that, in many instances,
both parties have been more guided by their view of its bearing on the
subject of baptism, than by an intense desire to ascertain the import of
the documents before them. As I am convinced that truth must be
consistent with itself, I have no fear that any real evidence can ever be
deduced from the Abrahamic covenant, in opposition to what the Lord
has so plainly established in the New Testament. The covenant with
Abraham, I am convinced, is, like every other part of the Old Testa-
ment, full of instruction to us, and is worthy of the most careful study.
But as no view of this subject can have the most distant bearing on
infant baptism, I do not think it necessary fully to examine that cove-
nant.
I entirely agree with those who consider this covenant as having a
letter and a spirit. For the accomplishment of the grand promise, that
all nations should be blessed in Abraham, three promises were given to
him. First, a numerous posterity, which was fulfilled in the letter, in
the nation of Israel. It was fulfilled in the spirit, by the Divine consti-
tution, that makes all believers the children of Abraham. The unbe-
lieving Jews were Abraham's children as to the flesh, yet there is a
sense in which Jesus denies that they were the children of Abraham.
The second promise was to be a God to him and his seed, which was
fulfilled in the letter by his protection of Israel in Egypt, — his delivering
of them from bondage, — his taking them into covenant at Sinai, — and
all his subsequent dealings with them in their generations, till they
were cast off by their rejection of Christ. This promise is fulfilled in
the spirit, by God's being a God to all believers, and to them alone,
Rom. iv. 11, 12, in a higher sense than he was to Israel, Jer. xxxi. 33.
The third promise was of the land of Canaan, fulfilled in the letter to
Israel, and in the spirit fulfilled to the true Israel in the possession of
the heavenly inheritance. In accordance with this double sense of the
promises of this covenant, the kingdom of God in Israel, with its officers,
laws, worship, &c, is a visible model of the invisible kingdom of Christ.
The typical ordinances, which exhibited the truths of the Gospel in
figure, form one of the most conclusive evidences of Christianity ; and
present spiritual things to the mind in so definite and striking a manner,
that they add the greatest lustre to the doctrines of grace. What a
striking emblem of the incarnation have we in God's dwelling in the
tabernacle and temple ! How clearly do we see substitution and impu-
tation in the laying on of hands on the victim ! How blind must they
THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 215
be, who do not see the atonement by the blood of Christ, in the sacrifices
of Israel !
This appears to me to be the only view of the covenant of Abraham,
that will suit every thing said of it in the word of God. That it has a
letter and a spirit is true, and analogous to every part of the Old Testa-
ment. But as long as Christians look at this covenant, on the one side
to make it a foundation for a New Testament ordinance, and, on the
other, to make it as unfit as possible for such a purpose, it need not be
expected that the mind of the Spirit will be understood. It will be easy
for a little perverse ingenuity on either side, to set it in a light that will
perplex the simple. If any one can say with the Psalmist, " I opened
my mouth, and panted ; for I longed for thy commandments," let him
come with me beyond the cloud that has been raised around the Abra-
hamic covenant, and try what we can discover in the sunshine on the
other side. Let them make what they will of that covenant, I maintain
that it affords no foundation for infant baptism. They tell us that the
covenant of Abraham was the new covenant. Now, for argument's
sake, let it be the new covenant, and I deny the result that they wish
to draw. Infants are not saved by the new covenant, and there-
fore they cannot be connected with it, in any view that represents them
as interested in it. It is a vulgar mistake of theologians to consider,
that if infants are saved, they must be saved by the new covenant.
There is no such doctrine exhibited in any part of the book of God.
Infants must be saved as sinners, and saved through the blood of Christ ;
but there was no necessity to give a covenant to man to ratify this.
Whether all infants dying in infancy are saved, or only some infants,
they are saved just as adults, as to the price of redemption, and as to the
sanctification of their nature. But they are not saved as adults, by the
truth believed. That sacrifice which is the ground of the new covenant,
is the salvation of saved infants ; but there is no part of the word of
God, that intimates that it is through faith in that sacrifice. God, who
applies that sacrifice to adults only through faith, can apply it to dying
infants without faith, — for faith has no merit more than works. It is
only the Divinely appointed medium. Theologians have manifested a
great want of discrimination on this subject. That necessity of faith
which the Scriptures apply to adults, and adults only, theologians have
applied to infants, without warrant, as if God was bound to proceed
towards them as he does towards adults. Therefore it is that, even in
Dr. Dwight, we find that frightful fanaticism, that speaks of the infant
faith of John the Baptist; as if God could not save or sanctify an infant
without faith, because none who hear the Gospel can be sanctified with-
out faith. Surely it ought to make every sober mind suspect that there
must be something wrong at the bottom of these views, that must con-
sider an unconscious infant as possessing faith.
But this view not only leads to absurdity, it takes its origin in that
principle of self-righteousness that is so prone, even in Christians, to
work itself into every subject of Divine revelation of which they are
ignorant. It supposes that it is so necessary for man to do something
as to his acceptance with God, that even the infant who cannot comply
216 THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM.
with the terms itself, must do it by its substitute. It has its name put
into the covenant, or put into the Gospel grant. And who is he that
will undertake to put a name into God's covenant? What antichrist
will dare to take the throne of Jesus, and put a name into the Gospel
grant? Even the most pious men, when ignorant of God's ordinances,
will attempt to establish the ordinances of man. Even the pious Henry
speaks in this antichristian style. So true it is, that we cannot oppose
any part of the Divine counsel, without loss. Every error is in some
way injurious to the grand truth of the Gospel itself.
Theologians, justly considering that infants have sinned in Adam,
have also justly considered that they must be washed in the blood of
the Saviour. But they have, without warrant, and without discrimina-
tion, considered that they must be saved by that covenant that was
given for the salvation of believers. But they can have nothing to do
with a covenant that requires faith for salvation. Were it true that
infants could not be saved but by this covenant, none of them would be
saved. This would denounce to condemnation all who die before the
belief of the Gospel. The new covenant knows nothing of any salva-
tion but through faith. " He that believeth, shall be saved ; he that
believeth not, shall be damned," is the testimony from which it never
for a moment swerves. Such a covenant cannot save an infant, who
believes nothing. But there is a covenant in which they are included,
and which will save as many of them as are included in it, — the cove-
nant of redemption between the Father and the Son, in which he
engaged to lay down his life as a ransom for his chosen, whether infants
or adults. Though infants are not saved by faith, they can join in the
song of the Lamb in heaven, " Thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us
to God by thy blood, out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and
nation."
But let us ask Jeremiah, xxxi. 31, — let us ask the apostle Paul,
Heb. viii. 10, 11, who they are that are included in the new covenant?
" For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after
those days, saith the Lord ; I will put my laws into their mind, and
write them in their hearts." " And they shall not teach every one his
neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord : for all
shall know me, from the least to the greatest." Here we see that all
who are included in this covenant, have the laws of God put into their
mind, and written on their heart, by himself. Can this be said of
infants? The subjects of this covenant know the Lord — all of them —
even the least of them. This surely cannot include infants, who know
nothing. Is there not a necessity to teach children, as soon as they are
capable of instruction, to know the Lord ? Are any children found who
need not this instruction ? If not, there are no infants in this covenant.
The sacrifice of the Son of God was as necessary for infants as for
adults. But had it pleased God that all the elect should die in infancy,
there would have been no need of the new covenant at all. The
Gospel would then have never been preached. To keep in mind this
distinction, would preserve theologians free from many of their embar-
rassments. The necessity of faith, and the necessity of atonement, are
THE SUBJECTS OP BAPTISM. 217
not of the same kind. Ignorance of this has led to the most frantic
extravagance. In order to save infants, some have been led to assert
that they have faith ; others, that they have imputative faith ; and others,
that they have habitual faith. Now, all these opinions are grounded on
ignorance of the difference between the necessity of faith, and the
necessity of redemption or atonement. The infant faith of Luther,
the imputative infant faith of Calvin, and the habitual infant faith of the
church of Rome, have a common foundation in ignorance of this dis-
tinction, and are all opposed to sound views of the truth. Even Dr.
Williams, an English Independent, and a writer of celebrity, makes the
most doleful lamentation about cutting off infants from the church mili-
tant, by refusing to include them in the commission of the apostles.
Militant infants ! What an idea! Might we not as well attempt to
cure Bedlam with syllogisms, as reason with persons who speak of believ-
ing militant infants ? If any general should talk of raising an army of
infants to oppose an invading enemy, he would at once be deemed insane,
and his sovereign would not one moment longer entrust him to com-
mand— no, not though he were the Duke of Wellington. But when
doctors of divinity speak like madmen, it is only the depth of their
theological learning, and they are only the more admired.
2. My second observation is, that the infants even of Abraham him-
self, were not saved, when they died in infancy, by Abraham's covenant.
He was not the spiritual father of his own infant seed. It is a common
opinion, that Abraham, by that covenant, was constituted the head of
all the redeemed. But this is a grand mistake. He was the head
of believers only. By that covenant he was constituted the father of
believers in all ages, but of none else. He was made the father of all
them that believe out of every nation : and to his own descendants he
was " the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision
only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith" which Abraham had.
So then he was the spiritual father of none among his own descendants,
but of such as believed. There was, then, by this covenant, no spiritual
connexion between Abraham and his infant seed. His justification was
not the pattern of theirs. He was justified by faith : his infants dying
in infancy were not justified by faith. They were saved, as all saved
infants were saved from the beginning of the world, and will be to the
end of the world, through the bruising of the heel of the seed of the
woman.
Dr. Wardlaw calls on his opponents to show where the spiritual
connexion between believers and their infant seed, established by this
covenant, is cut off. I cut it off by showing that it never existed.
Abraham himself had no such spiritual connexion with his infant
seed. The covenant with Abraham made no new relation between him
and his infant seed ; and much less did it constitute a spiritual relation
between every believer and his infant seed.
But even had this covenant constituted a new relation between Abra-
ham and his infant seed, Dr. Wardlaw is wrong in throwing the burden
of proof on his opponents, with respect to the supposed similar relation
between every believer and his infant seed. There might have been
28
218 THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM.
such a connexion in the case of Abraham and his seed, without involv-
ing the necessity of a similar connexion between other believers and
their seed. Dr. Wardlaw contends, that if such a connexion existed in
the case of Abraham, it lies on his opponents to prove that it was dis-
continued. But surely it is a self-evident truth, that the burden of
proof lies on him who needs as an argument the thing to be proved ;
for if nothing is proved about it on either side, it cannot be used as an
argument. Before anything can be legitimately built on it, it must be
proved, if it is not self-evident. To prove such a connexion, then,
between Abraham and his seed by this covenant, is not proof that such
a connexion exists between other believers and their seed. The latter
must be proved before it is admitted. Granting, then, that there was a
spiritual connexion constituted between Abraham and his infant seed by
this covenant, that such a connexion exists between every believer and
his infant seed, is a thing that must be proved. This proof is some-
times rested on Gal. iii., where the blessing of Abraham is said to come
on the Gentiles. But that hlessing is not the blessing of a spiritual con-
nexion between believers and their seed, but the blessing of having faith
counted for righteousness, or of being justified as Abraham was justified.
What that blessing is, we see in verse 9 : "So then they which be of
faith, are blessed with faithful Abraham." None, then, are blessed with
faithful Abraham, but " they which be of faith." In verse 7, it is said,
"Know ye, therefore, that they which are of faith, the same are the
children of Abraham." Abraham, then, has no children spiritually, but
such as are of faith. Between him and his infants there was no spiritual
connexion.
3. My third observation is, that the covenant of Abraham is not
made with all believers. Indeed, it is strange there should be a neces-
sity to make such an observation. The Abrahamic covenant is so
evidently peculiar, that it is the most extravagant absurdity to suppose
that it is made with every believer in every age. Let us take a look
at this covenant, as it is recorded in Gen. xii. 1 : " Now the Lord
had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy
kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will show
thee. And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee,
and make thy name great ; and thou shalt be a blessing. And I
will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee : and
in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed." Is it not abso-
lute lunacy to suppose, that this covenant is made with all believers ?
Has God promised to every believer that he will make of him a great
nation ? Has God promised to every believer that he will make his
name great? Is every believer to become as celebrated as Abraham?
Has God promised to every believer, that the Messiah shall descend
from him, or that in him all the families of the earth shall be blessed ?
Every believer, indeed, is to be blessed according to that covenant; but
it is by having his faith, like Abraham's, counted for righteousness, not
by becoming, like Abraham, the father of any of the faithful.
Let us look again at Gen. xv. 5 : " Look now toward heaven, and
tell the stars, if thou be able to number them : and he said unto him,
THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 219
So shall thy seed be. And he believed in the Lord, and He counted it
to him for righteousness. And He said unto him, I am the Lord, that
brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit
it." Is every believer to have a posterity as numerous as the stars of
heaven? Is every believer to have the land of Canaan for his posterity?
It is said that every believer has a provision from God. This is granted,
but is that a fulfilling of this promise? This is Canaan; and the
whole earth, with the exception of that land, would not fulfil this pro-
mise. Every believer has a provision from God, but not in virtue of
this covenant, nor at all suitable to the inheritance here promised. —
Abraham's posterity must have that land. No other believer has this
promise, nor a promise at all corresponding to it. The most of the
Lord's people have no Canaan on earth, though every one of them, with
Abraham, is by faith heir of that better country typified by Canaan.
Let us read again Gen. xvii. 5 : " Neither shall thy name any more
be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham ; for a father of many
nations have I made thee. And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and
I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee. And I
will establish my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee
in their generations, for an everlasting convenant, to be a God unto thee,
and to thy seed after thee. And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed
after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan,
for an everlasting possession ; and I will be their God." Now, can any
one think that this covenant is made with every believer? Has every
believer a promise that kings shall descend from him? This covenant
is indeed everlasting. It is everlasting to the carnal seed, first, as the
covenant of royalty was everlasting to the seed of David, and as the
covenant of the priesthood was everlasting to the seed of Phinehas. But
in all such promises there is a spirit and a letter. The covenant of
Abraham is everlasting in the full sense of the word, for by it all Abra-
ham's spiritual seed are blessed with him, by having their faith counted
for righteousness to the end of the world. All believers in every age are
blessed by this covenant ; but to them it is not promised, as it. was to
Abraham, that God would be the God of their seed, for it does not
secure that they shall have any offspring at all. This covenant secured
to Abraham that he should have a seed, — that God would be the God
of that seed. Had not God provided a seed both carnal and spiritual
for Abraham, he would have broken this covenant. When God pro-
mised to Phinehas, " And he shall have it, and his seed after him, even
the covenant of an everlasting priesthood," Numb. xxv. 13, a posterity
is secured by this promise. But believers often have no posterity, there-
fore they cannot have the covenant of Abraham. Believers have their
own place in that covenant, but that is to be blessed in the seed of
Abraham, and like him, to have their faith counted for righteousness.
The promise to the seed is to Abraham's seed only — not to the seed of
all believers. That Abraham's covenant is given to all believers, is not
said here, nor any where else. Abraham's covenant is as peculiar to
himself, as the covenant of royalty was to David, or the covenant of
the priesthood to Phinehas. Even if the covenant of Abraham had
220 THE SUBJECTS OP BAPTISM.
promised that every one of Abraham's posterity, by all his wives, to the
end of the world, should be heirs of heaven, other believers have no
concern in it. "What was promised to Abraham's seed, was not pro-
mised to their seed. That covenant constitutes all believers Abraham's
seed, and secures to them an inheritance as such. But of their seed it
says nothing.
4. My fourth observation is, that the covenant of Abraham is not the
new covenant, or the Gospel. Dr. Wardlaw supposes that Gal. iii. 8,
establishes the identity of the Abrahamic covenant and the new covenant
so clearly that it is a matter of surprise that any should doubt it. " And
the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through
faith, preached before the Gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all
nations be blessed." But this does not make Abraham's covenant the
Gospel. It preached the Gospel by promising that all nations should
be blessed in Abraham. It might be said also of the Sinai covenant,
that it preached the Gospel, because the giving of the law through a
mediator was a figure of Christ. Every part of the legal dispensation
preached the Gospel, and still preaches the Gospel, Rom. x. 4. Will Dr.
Wardlaw say that there was nothing in the covenant of Abraham but
the Gospel ; and that all its promises are promises of the Gospel, to be
fulfilled to every believer 1 Is it a part of the Gospel, that God will be
a God to the seed of believers, as he was to the seed of Abraham ? Is
this contained in the promise, " In thee shall all nations be blessed ?"
This is the declaration that is said to have preached the Gospel to Abra-
ham prophetically. But it says nothing to Dr. Wardlaw's purpose. —
Many things essential to Abraham's covenant, are not promised by the
Gospel to all believers. It is, then, only an abuse of words to call
Abraham's covenant the Gospel.
5. My fifth observation is, that the promises of the covenant of
Abraham, were not to his seed, either carnal or spiritual, exactly the
same as to himself. God promised a numerous seed to Abraham. But
this is not promised to his seed, either spiritual or carnal, individually.
So far from this, the covenant of Abraham did not secure to any indi-
vidual of his race, that he should have any descendants, except to Isaac
and Jacob, to whom the covenant was expressly given. It Avould have
been quite consistent with all the promises of that covenant, that any
other individual should be childless ; nay, that the most righteous man
of his race might either have no children, or reprobate children. By
the covenant, Abraham must have a succession of carnal and spiritual
seed ; but this is not promised to his descendants. The race of any
other righteous descendant of Abraham, except Isaac and Jacob, might
have been totally cut off for their sins, without any violation of Abra-
ham's covenant. No Israelite, then, except Isaac and Jacob, had
Abraham's covenant. This is a grand mistake in Dr. Wardlaw. He
supposes that every believer has Abraham's covenant, whereas no other
man ever had it in all respects. Even Isaac and Jacob had it not in all
respects : they were not the fathers of all who believe ; while in some
respects the whole Jewish nation had the covenant of Abraham. Grant-
ing, then, that believers now have the covenant of Abraham, even as
THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 221
his own believing descendants had it till the coming of Christ, this does
not give them any promise to their seed. If any man is a believer, God
will be his God, according to the covenant of Abraham, or he is by faith
one of the seed of Abraham ; but that he shall have a spiritual or a car-
nal seed, is not promised by that covenant. The covenant secures this
to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob only ; for to these it was individually
given. It is as absurd for a believer to claim the promises to Abraham,
as to claim the crown of Great Britain. This is a point as clear as the
light of heaven, and it overturns all the elaborate deductions that have
been drawn from the Abrahamic covenant.
6. My sixth observation is, that the promise, " I will be a God to thy
seed," has a letter and a spirit. It is said, that in this promise God
must be a God to Abraham's seed, in the same sense in which he was a
God to himself. I acknowledge, that from the words of the promise we
could learn no distinction. But this is not absolutely necessary, and
other Scriptures demand a distinction. Whether it has not an inferior
sense in the letter, must be determined by the history of Abraham's de-
scendants. Now, that it has an inferior sense in the letter, is one of the
clearest things in the Old Testament. God is every where considered
as the God of the whole Jewish nation, even in the worst periods of their
history. This cannot imply that he was their God, in the full sense in
which he was the God of Abraham.
Let us take a glance at a few passages that establish this distinction.
Exod. xxix. 45, " And I will dwell among the children of Israel, and
will be their God." This is spoken of the whole Jewish nation, who
never were, as a nation, the true people of God. It might be said that
this is spoken with respect to them, as all in the New Testament churches
are addressed as saints, though there might be some who were not really
such. But this is not an answer. All in the New Testament churches
had given evidence that they were believers, though afterwards some of
them turned out not to be such. But no such thing was ever supposed
with respect to the Jews. They had their privileges, not by evidence of
saintship, but by their birth. They were not only born into the kingdom
of Israel, but were not afterwards put away for unbelief. There never
was a law given them, as it was to the churches of Christ, that none but
saints should belong to the nation or church of Israel. In Exod. xxxii.
11, we read, "And Moses besought the Lord his God, and said, Lord,
why doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people ?" — " Turn from thy
fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people." — "And the Lord
repented of the evil which he thought to do against his people." Here
the worshippers of the golden calf are called God's people ; and the
ground on which Moses pleads that God would not execute vengeance,
is, that his promise of their inheriting the land might not be violated.
The same thing is evident from Lev. xxvi. 44, "And yet for all that,
when they be in the land of their enemies, I will not cast them away,
neither will abhor them, to destroy them utterly, and to break my cove-
nant with them : for 1 am the Lord their God." Even in Babylon he
fulfilled his promise of being unto them the Lord their God.
Agreeably to this, God is every where in the Old Testament con-
222 THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM.
sidered as the husband of Israel ; and this relation is acknowledged even
in her adulteries, fcaifth iii. 14^/' Turn, O backsliding children, saith
the Lord; for I am married unto you." But it would be endless to
quote passages. Now, God was the husband of Israel only in the letter,
which was accomplished in Jesus becoming the husband of his church.
That the covenant of Abraham has a letter and a spirit, is not a
theory formed to serve a purpose, but is consonant to every part of the
old dispensation, and is the only thing that can harmonise it with the
new. The temple was the house of God in the letter ; believers are so
in the spirit. To call any house the house of God, is as much below the
sense which the same phrase has when it is applied to the church of
Christ, as to call the nation of Israel the people of God, is below the
sense which that phrase has when applied to the spiritual Israel. Besides,
there are many things spoken about the house of God in the letter, in
terms that can only fully suit the spirit. " I have surely built thee an
house to dwell in, a settled place for thee to abide in for ever :" 1 Kings
viii. 13. The incongruity of supposing Him, whom the heaven of hea-
vens cannot contain, to dwell in a house as a settled habitation, is removed
only by referring it to the spirit, or God as dwelling in the flesh. Christ's
body is the only temple of which this is fully true. God did not dwell
in the temple built by Solomon for ever ; but in the spirit, it is accom-
plished in its utmost extent. God will dwell in the temple of Christ's
body for ever. In like manner, in answer to Solomon, God declares,
" I have hallowed this house, which thou hast built, to put my name
there for ever; and mine eyes and mine heart shall be there perpe-
tually." 1 Kings ix. 3. It is only in Christ that the spirit of this is
fully accomplished. In him the name of God is put for ever; and in
him is he propitious to his people for ever. His eyes were long ago
turned from the house at Jerusalem. The nation of Israel was the
kingdom of God as the letter : the church of Christ is the kingdom of
God as the spirit. The nation of Israel was a kingdom of priests, and
an holy nation : the church of Christ is the spirit of which the other was
but the letter. Israel was an elected people ; but they were only types
of the true election. They were all Jews in the letter ; but it is said,
notwithstanding, that he is not a Jew who is one outwardly : Rom. ii. 28.
There was an Israel after the flesh, and an Israel after the spirit. " For
they are not all Israel, which are of Israel ; neither because they are the
seed of Abraham, are they all children : but, In Isaac shall thy seed be
called. That is, they which are the children of the flesh, these are not
the children of God : but the children of the promise are counted for the
seed." Rom. ix. 6. Here we are furnished with an inspired commentary
on this covenant. God was the God of the nation of Israel in the letter i
and as such, he gave them an inheritance and laws, and ordinances of
worship, &c. Even in that sense, he was not ashamed to be called their
God ; for he prepared for them a city. But to those who, with Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob, desired a better country, that is, an heavenly, he pre-
pared a city fully answerable to the magnificence of the title, people of
God. Of all the innumerable things which have a letter and a spirit
with respect to Christ and his people, there is not one instance in which
THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 223
a magnificence is not given to the letter, which can be fully found only
in the spirit. So little reason have we to think it strange, that God
should call himself the God of a whole nation in a typical sense, when
the body of that nation were not his true people.
7. My seventh observation is, that when a promise has a letter and a
spirit, it is fulfilled when it is accomplished in either the letter or the
spirit. It has two distinct accomplishments, and may be fulfilled in either,
or in both. The Scriptures afford many examples to justify this obser-
vation. When, then, it is said, that both the temporal promises and the
spiritual in the covenant of Abraham are to the same seed, all that can
be admitted is, that the words of the covenant do not make the distinc-
tion. But the distinction is seen in the history of the fulfilment of the
promises, and in the explanation of these promises. Paul, in his Epistle
to the Romans, clearly shows the distinction between the two seeds;
and the history shows us that the nation in general enjoyed the temporal
promises, but only few of them enjoyed the spiritual. Nothing can be
clearer than this, and it is useless to reason with any who have so little
spiritual discernment, as to think that all who enjoyed the earthly Canaan,
were also heirs of the heavenly. The Pharisees and Sadducees enjoyed
the earthly rest ; while Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, were strangers in
Canaan, and died not having received the promises.
8. My eighth observation is, that circumcision neither signed nor
sealed the blessings of the covenant of Abraham to the individuals to
whom it was by Divine appointment administered. It did not imply
that they who were circumcised were accounted the heirs* of the pro-
mises, either temporal or spiritual. It was not applied to mark them
individually as heirs of the promises. It did not imply this even to
Isaac and Jacob, who are by name designated heirs with Abraham.
Their interest in the promises was secured to them, by God's expressly
giving them the covenant, but was not represented in their circumcision.
Circumcision marked no character, and had an individual application to
no man but Abraham himself. It was the token of this covenant; and
as a token or sign, no doubt applied to every promise in the covenant,
but it did not designate the individuals circumcised as having a personal
interest in these promises. The covenant promised a numerous seed to
Abraham ; circumcision, as the token of that covenant, must have been
a sign of this. But it did not sign this to any other. Any other circum-
cised individual, except Isaac and Jacob, to whom the covenant was
given by name, might have been childless. Circumcision did not import
to any individual, that any portion of the numerous seed of Abraham
should descend through him. The covenant promised that all nations
should be blessed in Abraham, or that the Messiah should be his
descendant. But circumcision was no sign to any other that the Messiah
should descend from him, — even to Isaac and Jacob this promise was
peculiarly given, and not implied in their circumcision. From some of
Abraham's race, the Messiah, according to the covenant, must descend,
and circumcision was a sign of this : but this was not signed by circum-
cision to any one of all his race. Much less could circumcision sign this
to the strangers and slaves who were not of Abraham's posterity. To
224 THE SUBJECTS OP BAPTISM.
such, even the temporal promises were not either signed or sealed by
circumcision. The covenant promised Canaan to Abraham's descend-
ants, but circumcision could be no sign of this to the strangers and
slaves who enjoyed no inheritance in it. Indeed, even to Abraham's seed,
it could not sign Canaan individually. For upwards of four hundred
years from the institution of circumcision, Abraham's posterity did not
enjoy Canaan, and millions of infants died without having enjoyed it.
To these, then, circumcision could not be a sign of their enjoyment of
that land. If it is said, that though they did not possess it, they had a
right to it, I reply, that they had no right to it more than possession, for
God would not do wrong in depriving them of their right. What was
the ground of their right? Had they a promise or grant? They had
not. The land was promised to the seed of Abraham by Jacob, but not
to all of them. Had it been promised to them all, they must have all
enjoyed it, for God does not break his promises. To Abraham, it was
individually promised, as also to Isaac and Jacob ; and to them the pro-
mise was fulfilled in the spirit, as it was to many in the letter, who en-
joyed not the promise in the spirit. They obtained the better country
denoted by the promise of Canaan, and so, though they died not having
received the promises, they died that they might receive them. When
a prediction, or promise, has a letter and a spirit, it is fulfilled when it is
accomplished either in the letter or the spirit. What sort of a right is a
right to possess what is never designed to be given? A man may have
a right to possess what he never possesses, but assuredly he will have no
such right from God. God will not withhold any right : Abraham must
have enjoyed what was promised. The promise of the land, then, must
in the letter have respected Abraham's posterity, while it was accom-
plished to himself in a higher sense. He died, not disappointed, but
looking for the promise. As the promises in the Abrahamic covenant
were all unconditional, they must have been fulfilled to every individual
interested in them.
But whatever may be said about the right of possessing Canaan, with
respect to those who did not possess it, the reply of Mr. Innes is abund-
antly sufficient. " Even this right to Canaan only belonged to one branch
of Abraham's family, while circumcision was to be administered to all.
To those who were subjected to it, then, it did not, as individuals, seal
temporal blessings. Again, no one will allege it sealed spiritual bless-
ings to every one to whom it was applied, as it was manifest, that many
of those commanded to receive it, had no interest in such blessings."
Much stress has been laid on Rom. iv. 11, in which circumcision is
called " a seal of the righteousness of the faith which Abraham had, yet
being uncircumcised." It is said that it was a seal of spiritual bless-
ings. Undoubtedly it was a seal of spiritual blessings, but not a seal to
the individuals who were circumcised, that they were personally inter-
ested in those blessings. It seals the truth of the Gospel, namely, that
there is righteousness in the faith of Abraham, or that all who have
Abraham's faith have righteousness. This is what it sealed when
applied to Abraham : this is what it sealed in every instance of its
application. But it did not seal, even to Isaac and Jacob, that they
THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 225
had this righteousness. It sealed the same truth when applied to
Ishmael or Esau, or the slaves bought with money, as it did when
applied to those who walked in the steps of Abraham's faith. It had no
individual application to any man but Abraham himself. Words cannot
more expressly assert, that the thing of which circumcision is a seal, is
the righteousness of the faith of Abraham. It was not a seal to others
that they possessed the faith of Abraham. Dr. Wardlaw supposes that
such a marked reference to Abraham, would be inconsistent with farther
trial. But this is a strange observation from an experienced Christian,
deeply conversant with the Bible and his own heart. Were we in the
morning assured, by a voice from heaven, that God had accepted us,'
were Satan to be let loose upon us, and we left to ourselves, it would not
secure us till the evening from all the horrors of despair. Had God
forsaken Abraham for a moment, he might have doubted whether it was
God who had spoken to him in these transactions. Trial is not incon-
sistent with the utmost assurance that the Christian receives in this world.
He may hold the truth this moment with the utmost assurance; let him
be given into the hands of Satan to sift him, and he may doubt it the
next. Christ himself received his Father's testimony by a voice from
heaven, before he entered on his temptations, yet they were not less a
trial on that account.
That circumcision was not intended to seal anything personally to
those who received it, is clear from its being applied to those who have
no interest in the covenant to which it was attached. For a full, clear,
and satisfactory view of this argument, I refer to Mr. Innes, in his work
entitled Eugenio and Epinetus. Dr. Wardlaw alludes to it, but he can-
not be said even to have assailed it. Every position of Mr. Innes
remains unshaken. Ishmael was circumcised, who was expressly
excluded from the covenant. Abraham's slaves were commanded to be
circumcised, without any reference to faith. " He that is born in thy
house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circum-
cised." Gen. xvii. 13. " And Abraham took Ishmael his son, and all
that were born in his house, and all that were bought with his money,
every male among the men of Abraham's house ; and circumcised the
flesh of their foreskin in the self-same day, as God had said unto him,"
ver. 23. Dr. Wardlaw supposes that submission on the part of the
adult slaves must have been voluntary. But this is not necessary. As
a master, he had power to enforce obedience, and this commission
authorised him. Abraham would have been justified in circumcising
his slaves, had every one of them submitted with reluctance, or had
endeavoured to resist. If, then, this is the law of baptism, it will justify
the Spaniards in compelling the American Indians to be baptized. Nay,
it will make it the duty of every master of slaves to have them baptized,
whether they have faith or not ; for Abraham was bound to circumcise
every slave and every person in his house. Dr. Wardlaw speaks of
force as being a profanation of a Divine ordinance. To this Mr. Hal-
dane's reply is quite in point. " If in Israel a beautiful woman was
taken captive, and an Israelite chose to marry her, it was the Divine
ordinance that her hair and nails should be cut. Now, why should there
29
226 THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM.
be greater profaneness in cutting off the foreskin ?" But this objection
is founded on an entire mistake as to the nature of the profanation of a
Divine ordinance. How is a Divine ordinance profaned ? When it is
not in all respects applied according to institution. It cannot be a pro-
fanation of the ordinance of circumcision, to apply it to those to whom
it is expressly enjoined. Had murderers and adulterers been included in
the command to baptize, and to eat the Lord's supper, it would have
been no profanation of Divine ordinances, more than to preach the Gos-
pel to such persons, profanes the Gospel. Does Dr. Wardlaw mean, that
to force compliance to his appointments would be profane in God ? Man
has no right to use force with respect to Divine appointments, because
God has not given that authority. But God is a sovereign in all respects,
and may in justice enforce obedience. Accordingly, he commanded the
Canaanites to be cut off, and all idolators to be destroyed out of Israel.
This is a grand distinction between the Jewish dispensation and the
Christian. The subjects of Christ's kingdom are all voluntary. To
baptize infants is to profane baptism, because it applies the ordinance to
those not appointed to receive it. But to force slaves to receive
circumcision is not a profanation, for Abraham's commission warranted
force.
But even although the submission to circumcision had been voluntary
on the part of the slaves ; is a voluntary submission all that is required
for baptism ? Is every man to be baptized who is willing to submit to
the ordinance. Dr. Wardlaw endeavours to obtain some relief from
the faithfulness of Abraham, in teaching his family. But whatever may
be supposed as to his faithfulness and success in teaching his slaves,
their circumcision is not grounded on this, but on their being his pro-
perty, and in his house. The command will apply to one that had been
bought on that day, or to the most profane scoffer, as well as to Eliezer
of Damascus. But what an extravagant supposition, that every slave in
Abraham's house had Abraham's faith! And if they had not Abraham's
faith, they were not such as have a right to baptism. If all Abraham's
household were so well taught, Abraham was much more successful with
his slaves, than Jacob was with his sons. But we need not waste time
in refuting a supposition that is altogether apocryphal. There is nothing
said about the knowledge or faith of Abraham's slaves; and they were
commanded to be circumcised, not on account of their faith or knowledge,
but on account of being the property of Abraham.
The circumcision of the slaves, which destroys the system of our
opponents, is not only consonant to our views, but appears as suitable
as the circumcision of the natural seed of Abraham by Isaac and Jacob :
it is one of the patterns of heavenly things. As natural birth gives a
title to circumcision and the earthly inheritance, which was a figure of
the title of all who are born of the Spirit, to enjoy the heavenly inherit-
ance ; so the circumcision of the slaves bought with money, represented
that all who enter into Christ's kingdom are bought with his blood.
The circumcision of the slaves is as instructive as the circumcision of
Isaac. They had a typical holiness, perfectly the same as the natural
posterity of Abraham. The puroose of God in the circumcision of both
THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 227
Abraham's posterity and of their slaves, was totally independent of per-
sonal character.
Such a circumcision, then, could not imply, that the individuals had
an interest in the spiritual promises of the covenant. Indeed, the circum-
cision of slaves did not make them partakers even of the temporal
promises. " Servants," says Mr. Haldane, " although circumcised, did
not possess the privileges of the children of Abraham, nor were looked
upon as the people of God. They had no share of the land, and there
was no precept against selling them to another nation, when they would
lose all privileges of Israel. This also manifestly appears from many
considerations. In many of the laws, the distinction between Israel, who
were the Lord's servants, and the stranger, is stated. Thus they might
lend on usury to a stranger, but not to their brother, Deut. xxiii. 20.
They were not to eat what died of itself; they were to give it unto
the stranger that was in their gates, that he might eat it, or they
might sell it to an alien ; and the reason given is, ' For thou art an holy
people unto the Lord thy God.' Deut. xiv. 21. They might also buy
bondmen and bondmaids, not only of the heathen round about them,
but of the children of the stranger that sojourned among them, but they
could not keep an Israelite a bondman. Lev. xxv. 39 — 46. Thus it
appears, that a person being circumcised did not thereby become entitled
to the privileges of the children of Abraham, or of God's peculiar peo-
ple." The Shechemites, also, as Mr. Haldane observes, were circum-
cised not only without evidence of faith, but even without a profession
of it, which could not have been done with the approbation of Jacob,
had it been unlawful. Here, then, persons are circumcised not only who
had no evidence of being interested in the promises of the covenant, but
who were shut out from its temporal promises most expressly. From the
spiritual promises they were excluded as long as they continued unbe-
lievers, but from the temporal promises they were excluded for ever.
Persons, then, were circumcised who never could obtain an interest in
some of the blessings of the covenant, of which circumcision was the
token. How absurd, then, to make this the law of baptism !
But that circumcision, as a seal, had a personal reference to infants, is
impossible. Our opponents generally say, that circumcision was a seal
of spiritual blessings ; but the spiritual blessing of which it is said to
be the seal, is the righteousness of the faith of Abraham. Now, of this
spiritual blessing infants do not partake — they do not possess the faith of
Abraham. Circumcision, then, cannot seal what is not true. To all
INFANTS IT IS EQUALLY UNSUITABLE AS A SEAL. None of them possess
the faith of the righteousness of which circumcision was the seal. —
The argument, then, from circumcision, for the baptism of infants, is
utterly groundless. The former was applied to those who were mani-
festly destitute of an interest in the blessings of the covenant of Abraham.
The spiritual or emblematical meaning of circumcision, the change of
the heart by the Holy Spirit, is also without personal reference to the
circumcised infants. Infants were circumcised in the flesh, but were not
circumcised in the heart. Fanaticism itself cannot suppose, that all the
male infants of Israel, and of the slaves of Israel, were renewed by the
228 THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM.
Holy Spirit before the eighth day. The thing, therefore, that is shadowed
by circumcision, is not to be found in the infants who were circumcised.
In this it differs from baptism by the distance of heaven and earth.
That circumcision had no personal reference to the individuals circum-
cised, is also evident from the fact, that when a stranger desired to eat
the passover, all the males of his family must be circumcised. " And
when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to
the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near
and keep it." Exod. xii. 43. Here there is no faith required in the
person who desires to eat the passover, nor in his adult males, whether
children or slaves, who are to be circumcised as the condition of his eat-
ing the passover. The circumcision of his whole male family takes
place as a matter of course. There is, then, no law that requires even
a profession of faith in the God of Israel, in order to entitle a stranger
to eat the passover. There is no condition of either faith or character ;
and had he a thousand unbelieving children and slaves, he has a Divine
warrant to circumcise them.
Our opponents are in the habit of insisting that baptism has come in
the room of circumcision, or that it is the Christian circumcision. But
this is a most groundless figment, for which there is no plausible founda-
tion in the word of God. Yet the thing is so generally received, that it
is taken for granted as a first principle. To overturn it, nothing more
is necessary than to call for its proof. Col. ii. 11, 12, is usually appealed
to as giving some countenance to the idea ; and Mr. Ewing is confident
that, on any other principle, the apostle's reasoning is inconclusive, and
even his language unintelligible. Now, it is very strange how this
passage can be made to speak so decisively on this point. Let us hear
it speak for itself: "In whom also ye are circumcised with the circum-
cision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh
by the circumcision of Christ : Buried with him in baptism, wherein
also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God,
who hath raised him from the dead." This passage says not a word
about the subject, either expressly or by implication. How, then, does
Mr. Ewing extract his notion from it ? Why, by the help of a little
management. He represents the apostle as saying, " Being buried with
Christ by the washing of baptism, they are circumcised with the circum-
cision made without hands." Ah, Mr. Ewing, can your conscience allow
you to put so profane a hand on the word of God? He that can take
this liberty with the Scriptures, may prove or disprove anything. Does
the apostle say, " Being buried, ye are circumcised?" This makes the
apostle assert, that they were circumcised with the circumcision made
without hands, by baptism. But this is not the apostle's assertion. He
asserts, that they were circumcised with the circumcision of Christ, in
or by the putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision
of Christ. What is said of baptism is something additional. By no
torture are the words capable of Mr. Ewing's gloss. The apostle himself
minutely explains how they were circumcised in Christ. It is a circum-
cision made without hands. It cannot, then, be baptism ; for it is not
without hands. This circumcision consists in putting off the body of the
THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 229
sins of the flesh. The external circumcision cut off a part of the flesh ;
the circumcision without hands puts off the body of the sins of the flesh.
This is the circumcision of Christ ; the other was the circumcision of
the law. It is the circumcision made without hands, the putting off the
body of the sins of the flesh, that is here expressly called the circum-
cision of Christ. It is called the circumcision made without hands, to
distinguish it from its type, the circumcision of the flesh : it is called the
circumcision in which is put off the body of the sins of the flesh, to dis-
tinguish it from the typical circumcision, which did not cut off sin, but
flesh : it is called the circumcision of Christ, to distinguish it from the
circumcision of Moses. No language can be more express, or less capa-
ble of perversion. The circumcision here spoken of, could not possibly
be baptism ; because it is a circumcision which Christians are not only
said to have without any external operation, but which they have in
Christ : "In whom ye are circumcised." Christ himself performs this
circumcision, and we have it in him.
This passage clearly shows us what came in the room of circumcision.
The circumcision made without hands, came in the room of the circum-
cision made with hands ; the putting off the body of the sins of the flesh
came in the room of the cutting off the foreskin ; the circumcision of
Christ came in the room of the circumcision of Moses. All Christians
are circumcised in heart, as all Jewish males were circumcised in the
flesh. The Christian ordinances do not come in the room of the Jewish
ordinances. Were this the case, every Jewish ordinance is equally en-
titled to a substitute or successor. Circumcision has no peculiar right
to a preference. Every Jewish ordinance signified spiritual things, as
well as circumcision. They are all fulfilled in their emblematical mean-
ing, not in corresponding ordinances. For anything which we could
learn from the Old Testament, there might not have been any ritual
ordinance in the New.
Circumcision and baptism correspond in meaning. They both relate
to the removal of sin, the one by cutting, the other by washing. The
Lord's supper and the passover have a resemblance still more close ; yet
the one is not said to come in the room of the other. Christ himself
has come in the room of the passover ; for it is said, " Christ our Pass-
over is sacrificed for us." The Lord's supper is a feast of like nature,
but with this fundamental difference, which equally applies to baptism
and circumcision, — it does not belong to the same persons. The Lord's
supper, as well as baptism, belongs solely to the true Israel of God : the
passover belonged to the carnal Israel, without respect to their faith or
character. The persons whom John drove from his baptism, had as
good a right to all the Jewish ordinances as John the Baptist himself.
The scribes, and Pharisees, and Sadducees, with the whole unbelieving
body of the Jewish nation, enjoyed all the ordinances of the Jewish dis-
pensation, by as valid a title as the apostles of Christ. Neither Jesus
nor his apostles ever forbade this, nor made any observations on it as an
impropriety. The ministrations of the priests were never objected to ;
because they were carnal men, and rejected the Messiah when he mani-
fested himself to Israel. This is the grand distinction between the
230 THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM.
Jewish ordinances and the ordinances of the church of Christ. The
former shadowed good things to come, and were appointed for the
nation in general, which had only a typical holiness ; the latter are ap-
pointed only for the true holy people, and take it for granted, that all
who partake of them, enjoy the thing figured by them.
If baptism came in the room of circumcision, it would not have com-
menced till the other had ceased ; nor would it have been applied to
circumcised persons. Why did John baptize the circumcised Jews
before the manifestation of Christ? Why did Jesus baptize before the
end of the Jewish dispensation? But why shall we labour to overturn
a mere figment? There is no need to establish, by arguments, that bap-
tism did not come in the room of circumcision. Our opponents must
prove that it did; and for this they have not the shadow of proof. They
have the saying of divines, but this is the highest authority. It rests on
no better evidence than the doctrine of the Pharisees for the washing of
hands before meat ; it is a tradition of the elders. Even if it did come
in the room of circumcision, this does not import that it must have the
same subjects, or be regulated by the same laws. How far they agree,
and how far they differ, must be learned from what is said of them
respectively. It is impossible to ascertain, from general principles, how
far likeness extends.
Our opponents found the right of the child on the faith of the imme-
diate ancestor. But if the law of circumcision is to regulate baptism,
the posterity of a believer have a right to baptism, to the remotest gene-
rations, if all their intermediate progenitors were atheists. The child
of a Jew must be circumcised without any respect to the faith of the
parent. If, then, none but believers have a right to obtain baptism for
their children, the law of circumcision does not apply to it. Why, then,
should it apply in anything else ?
It is said, that if the children of believers are not baptized, the privi-
leges of the Jewish church are greater than those of the Christian church.
As reasonably may this be said, if slaves are not baptized with their
masters, and if we have not all an earthly Canaan. "We have no
earthly inheritance like Israel," says Mr. Haldane, " nor are Christian
servants entirely exempted from work one day in seven, nor have we a
sabbatic year, nor a jubilee when our debts are discharged." As to
parents and children, circumcision was no privilege at all. Had circum-
cision made the children of the Jews heirs either of Canaan or of hea-
ven, it might be considered as a privilege, but it did neither. It was not
enjoined, nor ever explained as a privilege to individuals. It was en-
joined by the most severe penalty, even death. The females had no
loss by the want of it. They enjoyed every spiritual privilege equally
with the males ; and the want of circumcision did not deprive them even
of any temporal privilege, which they would have enjoyed. It is true,
indeed, that Paul says that there was much profit in circumcision. Rom.
iii. 1, 2. But it is evident that this includes females, and refers to
Israel as the circumcised nation. Circumcision is here taken for the
whole legal dispensation to which it was attached ; for the chief of
these privileges was, " that to them were committed the oracles of God."
THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 231
Now the females had this privilege equally with the males. It was, then,
rather a privilege to the females to be freed from this painful rite.
Indeed, nothing can more clearly prove that circumcision could not be
a spiritual privilege, than that the females were excluded. There never
was a spiritual distinction between male and female. Circumcision was
a part of that yoke, from which the spiritual Israelites were delivered by
Christ. It is strange, then, to hear Christians speaking of it as a spi-
ritual privilege. It arises from the same spirit that in the apostolic
age made both Jews and Gentiles so prone to return to the weak and
beggarly elements. He must be a babe in Christ, who cannot see how
much the privileges of the new dispensation exceed those of the old,
without taking into the account any ordinance in the room of circum-
cision. The church of Israel had the circumcision of the flesh, — the
church of the New Testament have the circumcision of the heart. Is
not this an immeasurable enlargement of privileges? The child of the
Christian is perfectly, as to spiritual things, on the footing of the chil-
dren of the Jews, for circumcision implied nothing to them individually.
It did not mark them as the children of God. The children of believers
may be said, in one point of view, to have better privileges, for they have
a clearer revelation. They possess the oracles of God in a much greater
proportion than the Jews did. Circumcision secured to the circumcised
person no blessing either temporal or spiritual : it was enforced by the
penalty of death : it was not enjoined on all Jeioish children : it was not
enjoined on believers in other nations ; it could not, then, be a spiritual
privilege to individuals. The edification that it contained was as avail-
able to females, who were excluded from it, as to the males on whom it
was enjoined.
Nothing can more clearly prove that circumcision had no personal
application to the circumcised individual, than the circumstance that
this ordinance was inapplicable to females, — the one half of the seed of
Israel. Had it been of any spiritual advantage, or had it been appointed
to mark the character of those to whom it was applied, would females
have been excluded ? Were they not heirs of heaven equally with the
males? Had circumcision, then, been appointed to designate the heirs
of the everlasting inheritance, it must have been extended to females.
It is said, the Abrahamic covenant contained spiritual blessings : infants
had its seal; why, then, shall not infants have baptism? I reply, the
one half of Jewish infants had not the seal, which demonstrates that
the seal had no personal application to the individual.
It is said, that there is no better evidence that women should eat the
Lord's supper, than there is that infants should be baptized. Now, were
this true, what is the consequence ? Not that we should baptize infants,
to be consistent in admitting females to eat the Lord's supper ; but that
females should be excluded from the Lord's supper, as well as infants
from baptism. This is the popish argument to induce Protestants to
receive the traditions of the Romish church. They tell us, " Ye have
changed dipping into sprinkling by the authority of the church ; ye have
no better authority for infant baptism itself: why, then, do ye not receive
transubstantiation on the same authority?" I always reply, that my
232 THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM.
brethren who practise infant baptism, do not ground their practice on
the authority of the church, but on their view of Scripture ; and that
the argument is false, because it justifies one tradition by another. They
tell us, also, that we have no authority for the change of the Sabbath,
but the authority of the church ; and some paedo-baptists tell us, that we
have no better authority for the Lord's day than for infant baptism. I
give the same reply to both. As soon as I am convinced that this is the
case, I will give up the Lord's day. Much as I value that day, I will
not receive a cargo of Romish trumpery in order to license me to retain
it. If the Lord's day has no better authority than the tradition of the
church, or the arguments that support infant baptism, let it fall. But
this is not the case. The Sabbath rests on pillars as firm as those of
creation, being appointed before the entrance of sin, and grounded on
reasons that are as lasting as the world. And the particular day is
ascertained in the New Testament, as the first day of the week, and the
Lord's day. But I will not here enter into proof, because it has nothing
to do with this controversy. Even granting that it has no better proof
than infant baptism, the latter is not relieved. In like manner, if there
is no better authority for the eating of the Lord's supper by females,
than there is for infant baptism, both must fall together.
But they who make this objection, must have read the Scriptures with
little reflection. That women did eat the Lord's supper, there is the
fullest and most direct evidence. " And upon the first day of the week,
when the disciples came together to break bread." Acts xx. 7. Here it
is said of the disciples without any exception, that they came together
to eat the Lord's supper. If, then, women are disciples as well as men,
there is here the most direct evidence that they ate the Lord's supper.
Paul delivered the Lord's supper with the rest of the ordinances to the
church at Corinth, without exception, 1 Cor. xi. 23 ; if, then, there were
females in the church, they are included equally with the males. That
females were members of the churches, is clear from the same chapter ;
for Paul speaks of a regulation with respect to them. Besides, from the
whole account, it is evident that all in the church are equally concerned
in eating the supper : " When ye come together, therefore, into one
place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper." This shows that the
primary intention of their meetings was to eat the supper ; and that they
partook of it without exception. The word translated man also in the
directions, verses 28 — 34, includes both male and female. Besides, it
is expressly said, that under this dispensation, there is neither male nor
female.
But though I have shown that there is direct proof that women ate
the Lord's supper, I do not consider that this is necessary. Had I no
other evidence than that they were baptized, I should consider this
perfectly sufficient, if no restriction were given in any other part of
Scripture. I do not object to inference ; on the contrary, I receive
what is made out by inference, just as I receive the most direct state-
ment. But an inference is not a guess, or conjecture, or probability, or
conceit, drawn at random ; it must be the necessary result of the prin-
ciple from which it is deduced. If it is not, it should not be dignified
THE SUBJECTS OP BAPTISM. 233
with the name of inference. The person who is admitted to one ordi-
nance of a church, is admitted to all, if there is no limitation. Indeed,
the person who is admitted into a church, must have all the ordinances
of the church, if there is no limitation. Is it not for these ordinances
that a church exists. But are we for this reason to infer, that as
infants under the Jewish dispensation received circumcision, a rite that
supposed no character in the person circumcised, they should under the
Christian dispensation receive baptism, which supposes that all baptized
persons are washed from sin through the belief of the truth? In giving
the Lord's supper, had any directions been added that confined it to
males, as the commission confines baptism to believers, then no inference
could establish the right of females. There is not the smallest similarity
between the cases.
It is often said that the Jewish church was the same with the
Christian. There is just such a portion of truth in this assertion, as to
enable it to impose on the ignorant. But with respect to every thing
which can concern this argument, it is manifestly false. Is the Christian
church that rejected the great body of the Jewish nation, the same with
the Jewish church, which, by God's own appointment, contained the
whole nation ? Was the church into which its members were born, the
same with the church whose members must be born from above, —
born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man,
but of God ? Was the church that admitted every stranger to its pass-
over, without any condition of faith or character, merely on complying
with a certain regulation that gave circumcision to their males, without
any condition of faith or character, the same with the church that re-
quires faith and true holiness in all who enjoy its ordinances? Was the
church that contained the scribes, and Pharisees, and Sadducees, — the
most cruel, determined, open, and malignant enemies of Christ, — the same
with that church into which such persons could not enter without a
spiritual birth? The church of Israel was the nation of Israel, and as
a whole could no more be called the church of Christ, in the sense of
that phrase in the New Testament, than the nation of England can be
called the church of Christ. It is said that a similar corruption has
taken place in the church of Christ. But this observation proceeds on
a fundamental mistake. The very constitution of the Jewish church
recognised the membership of carnal persons. It did not make the
distinction between those born after the flesh, and those born after the
Spirit. There was no law to exclude the Pharisees, or even the Saddu-
cees, from the Jewish church. Their doctrines and practices were
condemned by the Old Testament ; but it was no corruption of the con-
stitution of the church to contain them. On the other hand, the
constitution of the churches of Christ rejects such persons, and provides
for their expulsion. It is a corruption of the church that receives or
retains them. The distinction between the two cases is as wide as the
distance between earth and heaven.
As to the ordinances of the Jewish church, they are all abolished.
Christ himself, when on earth, could not be a priest in it, but he is the
only priest of the Christian church. " For the priesthood being changed,
30
234 THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM.
there is made of necessity a change also of the law." Whatever unity
may be supposed to be in the Jewish church and the church of the New
Testament, it does not consist in sameness of members, or of ordinances.
The one, by its constitution, included carnal members ; the other, by its
constitution, admits spiritual members only. This, then, is the only
point of view in which the subject can have any reference to the contro-
versy on baptism. This difference existing, no number of points of
coincidence can avail our opponents.
The church of Israel was the type of the church of the New Testa-
ment, containing no doubt the body of the people of God at that time on
the earth, and in this point of view, may be called the same. Both are
called the kingdom of God, and both were such, but in a different sense.
The one was a kingdom of this world ; the other is a kingdom not of
this world. God's kingdom of Israel contained many who did not belong
to his spiritual kingdom ; and some belonged to his spiritual kingdom,
who did not belong to the typical kingdom. All the believers belong
to the church of Christ, but all believers did not belong to the church
of Israel.
As the church of Israel was the church of God, typical of his true
church, and containing in every successive age a remnant of the spiritual
seed of Abraham, according to the election of grace, the New Testament
church is spoken of in the Old under the figure of Israel, Zion, Jeru-
salem, God's holy mountain, the tabernacle of David, &c. &c. This
cannot possibly apply literally, and is explained by the apostles as
referring to the calling of the Gentiles. In like manner, the book of
Revelation speaks of measuring the temple. The reality is spoken of
under the name of that which was its type. The restoration of the Jews,
also, is spoken of as a re-union into their own olive-tree. A correct
view of this peculiarity is of great importance, and I perceive that it is
very much misunderstood by our opponents ; but as it has no concern
with this controversy, I will not enter on any discussion foreign to my
subject. As to this controversy, I care not what sameness our opponents
may pretend to find between the church of Israel and the church of
Christ, as long as they are different in members and ordinances.
9. My ninth observation is, that baptism is not the seal of the new
covenant. That baptism and the Lord's supper are seals of the cove-
nant, is a doctrine so common, and a phraseology so established, that it
is received without question as a first principle. They who measure
truth by the attainments of our ancestors, look upon the questioning of
this dogma as a kind of impiety and heresy ; and even the modern
Independents, who have professed to be guided solely by the Bible, have
very generally continued to speak in the same language. While I
highly respect and value the ancient writers who speak in this manner,
I strongly protest against it as unscriptural, and as laying a foundation
for receiving other things on the authority of man. Let our ancestors
have all the esteem and gratitude to which they are entitled, — but that
esteem is much misplaced, if it leads us to follow them in anything in
which they have not followed Christ. In many things their attainments
were great, and their writings are worthy of the most careful study;
THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 235
but in some things they were mistaken, and reverence for them ought
not to induce us to receive their errors. It is disgraceful to Christians,
that they continue to hold the errors of their unworthy ancestors, and
to feel a reverence for the unscriptural phraseology of ancient divines,
similar to that of the Pharisees for the traditions of the elders. Is there
any Jewish tradition more void of scriptural authority, tkan that which
designates baptism and the Lord's supper seals of the new covenant ?
There is not in the New Testament any single portion that can bear
such a meaning. And what can the wisest of men know about these
things, but what God has told us? He has not said that baptism is a
seal. Circumcision was a seal of the righteousness of the faith of
Abraham. This was God's seal to the truth, till the letter was abolished.
The Spirit of truth is the seal, and the circumcision of the heart by
him is the thing signified by circumcision in the flesh. The circumcised
nation was typical of the church of Christ, for the apostle says, " we are
the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit ;" and " circumcision
is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter." The circum-
cision of the Jews was the letter, of which the circumcision of the heart
in Christians is the spirit. The Christian, then, has a more exalted
seal than circumcision — he has the Spirit of God, " whereby he is sealed
unto the day of redemption." Ephes. iv. 30. When sinners believe in
Christ, they are sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise, which is " the
earnest of their inheritance until the redemption of the purchased pos-
session." Eph. i. 13. The seal, then, that comes in the room of cir-
cumcision, is the seal of the Spirit. Circumcision sealed God's truth
to Abraham, and all who ever shall have the faith of Abraham. It was
applied to the typical nation without respect to character ; but the seal
of the Spirit is applied to none but believers, and to believers of all
nations as well as Jews. When the Holy Spirit himself, in the heart of
the believer, is the seal of God's truth, there is no need of any other
seal. Baptism represents the belief of the truth in a figure, and takes
it for granted that they are believers to whom it is applied — but it is no
seal of this. They may appear to be Christians to-day, and therefore
ought to be baptized; to-morrow they may prove the contrary, and
therefore they cannot have been sealed by baptism. He that is once
sealed by the Spirit, is secured to eternity.
10. My last observation is, that to place the grounds of infant baptism
on the Abrahamic covenant, is to make intelligent obedience impossible
to most Christians. If no believer can know what the Lord requires in
this matter, till he understands the covenant of Abraham, very many
could not act at all. Can any man think that God would leave the
grounds of this duty so enveloped in darkness? When the most illite-
rate heathen, or the most ignorant savage, believes the Gospel, five
minutes will be enough to prove to him the duty of being baptized as a
believer. But if he has children, when will he be able to baptize them
by his knowledge of the covenant of Abraham ? The most acute writers
who have been all their lives engaged in the study of it, and in defence
of infant baptism from it, are not able to keep themselves from speaking
in many things like children. And after all their striving, they have
/
236 THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM.
not been able to make out a consistent scheme. It is only the preju-
dices of the public, which are universally and strongly in their favour,
that screen them from the ridicule of the most childish trifling. Many
of themselves, after wasting perhaps a quarter of a century in adjusting
a scheme, are obliged to tear it down with their own hands. In my
ignorance, I made the attempt, as well as others ; but I found I must
either give up the Bible, or give up infant baptism. If, then, it is so
difficult a thing, to make out a plausible case in defence of infant
baptism from the Abrahamic covenant, even with all the advantages
that constant study affords, what must be the situation of the newly
converted pagan ! Has God left him in such a condition that he cannot
know whether he ought to baptize his children, till he can penetrate the
deep recesses of the covenant of Abraham 1 Mr. Ewing complains that
many persons go over from the Independent churches to the Baptists,
before they are thoroughly acquainted with the subject. Now this may
be true, if he means that they are not able to discuss with him the
popping system, or the Abrahamic covenant. But it is not true, as
respects the knowledge of the scriptural grounds for that ordinance.
Five minutes are sufficient to convince any man, who is open to convic-
tion, and who comes to the Scriptures like a little child. I have written
a large book to prove what I believe might be clearly pointed out in a
few minutes, if all the disciples of Christ had in all things the teachable-
ness of a little child. Every believer must be as a little child ; he
cannot receive the truth but as a little child. But it is only with respect
to the truth itself, that all Christians are of this character. With respect
to any thing in which we are not taught by the Spirit, we are as un-
teachable and perverse as the world. Christ's institutions, therefore, it
is much to be lamented, are despised and corrupted, even by his own
children. How soon was the Lord's supper corrupted by the church at
Corinth ! And by our long sojourning in Babylon, we have been so
accustomed to speak her language, that we have in a great measure cor-
rupted our own. Babylonish words, Babylonish accent, Babylonish
rites, may still be discovered in the school of Christ.
There is not one of all the ordinances of the Lord Jesus Christ, that
has been left untouched by the wisdom of man. Some of them have
been abandoned as worn out by time : others of them have been entirely
new-modelled, so that not a feature of them remains as it came from
his hand : and many things have been added, of which no vestige is
found in the word of God. Baptism has been changed both in its form
and in its subjects ; and it is lamentable to observe, with what perverse-
ness even Christians cling to the innovations. In this we see remarkably
fulfilled what our Lord charges on the Pharisees. The commandment
of God requires children, to support their parents when destitute, but the
Pharisees delivered men from this commandment by substituting some-
thing for it. " Thus," says Christ, " have ye made the commandment of
God of none effect by your tradition." Matt. xv. 6. Now, the like has
taken place with respect to baptism. The ordinance that Jesus appointed
was an immersion in water, as a figure of the death, burial, and resur-
rection of Christ, and of the believer with him. The wisdom of man
THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 237
has changed immersion into pouring or sprinkling a little water on the
face, without any reference to death, burial, and resurrection. This is
the substitute for the Lord's commandment. Is not this the very thing
that Christ charges on the Pharisees ? The Pharisees told their disci-
ples that the corban or gift would be a substitute for obeying the com-
mandment of God ; and we are told, that though immersion was the
original mode of baptism, yet pouring or sprinkling will answer the same
end, and be sufficient for baptism. Others whose principles will not
allow them the use of this antichristian liberty, do still greater violence
to the Scriptures, by forcing them to speak what they wish. Ah, my
fellow-Christians, why will ye follow the Pharisees in making void the
commandment of God ?
In like manner, the invention of man in baptizing infants has totally
set aside the ordinance of God. Jesus commands believers to be bap-
tized ; but since the Pharisees have introduced infant baptism, Christ's
baptism is not known, so far as the other extends. The baptizing of
persons in infancy is made to stand as a substitute for the baptism of
believers, which Christ appointed. Christ's ordinance, then, has been
totally abolished, and a human invention both in mode and subjects has
taken its name. So true it is that every invention of man in the things
of God, has a tendency to supplant some part of Divine truth.
Section IV. — Thus have we seen, from the most impartial examina-
tion, that infant baptism has not in the word of God an inch of solid
ground on which to stand. The apostolic commission commands the
baptism of believers, and of believers only. No lawful interpretation
can introduce infants into that commission, or give authority to dispense
with the baptizing of believers. No instance of the baptism of an infant
is to be found among the documents of the apostolic practice. A child
may perceive the insufficiency of the argument from the households.
The Abrahamic covenant has no bearing on this subject. Baptism, I
have shown to be immersion, by a strength of evidence that no true
scholar — no sound critic — will ever attempt to overturn. Let the child-
ren of God renounce the traditions of men ; let them submit with hu-
mility and with gratitude to the ordinance of Christ. In the keeping
of his commandments, there is a great reward. " He that hath my
commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me, and I will
love him, and will manifest myself unto him. This is the love of God,
that ye keep his commandments. — Why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do
not the things that I say?"
CHAPTER IV.
REPLY TO REMARKS ON MR. CARSON'S TREATISE ON BAPTISM, CONTAINED
IN A NOTE IN MR. BICKERSTETH's LATE WORK ON THE SAME SUBJECT.
Section I. — In religious controversy it is a great advantage to have
an opponent who is under the influence of the fear of God, and who can
be viewed as writing with a paramount regard to the authority of Scrip-
ture. With many controversialists the object evidently is, not to ascer-
tain, with exactness and certainty, the testimony of God ; but with all
licentiousness to exert ingenuity to defend the cause they have espoused,
and evade the conclusions of their antagonists. The aim is to defend a
favourite cause and put down opposition ; not to search for truth, and
exhibit it with evidence. To avoid reprehending such writers with
severity, is neither possible nor warrantable. The artifices of sophistry
are as dishonest as those of pickpockets or swindlers, and they are much
more injurious to the interests of mankind. The delinquents ought not
only to be obliged to restore what they have unjustly taken away; but
to suffer exemplary punishment as a warning to others.
On the present occasion I am peculiarly favoured, in having an oppo-
nent whom I respect and love for the truth's sake that dwelleth in him ;
and it is my resolution not to sink the probe a hair's breadth more
deeply than the cure of the wound requires. Mr. Bickersteth I believe
to be eminently a man of God. But I must defend truth at every expense.
I shall know no man who opposes it. The word of God is my only stand-
ard. It would be much more agreeable to my feelings, and more ad-
vantageous to my interest, to write only on such subjects as would meet
the approbation of the great body of Christians. Yet with the full fore-
sight of all the unpopularity that attends opposition to popular errors, I
have often come forward to the support of injured truth. It is in itself
a grievous thing, that the time and talents of God's people, instead of
being wholly employed against the common enemy, for the advancement
of the common faith, should be employed in opposing each other; but
while error is to be found among them, the thing is unavoidable. It
may be afflictive to us, but the God of wisdom must have some wise pur-
pose to serve by it.
The remarks on my Treatise on Baptism, which are contained in a
note in a work on the same subject by Mr. Bickersteth, he tells Us are
238
REPLY TO REV. E. BICKERSTETH. 239
from the pen of a friend. But as Mr. Bickersteth has identified himself
with his friend, by publishing the remarks in his book, I shall make him
accountable for every thing in them. As I have not yet read a line of
Mr. Bickersteth's work, except the appendix, I shall confine my obser-
vations to the remarks of his friend.
" Mr. C. treats in his work," says the writer, "first of the mode, and
next of the subjects of baptism. The choice of this order is itself in-
structive. The main topic is made secondary to one quite subordinate."
I am the most successful author that ever wrote a book. Most authors
are very well contented if they yield instruction in the things in which
they intend to instruct. But it is my privilege, it seems, to yield
instruction utterly beyond the bounds of my contemplation. To express
an opinion, with respect to the comparative importance of the mode and
of the subjects of baptism, by the order of treating them, never once
crossed my mind. I chose this order merely as the most natural. It is
surely natural to treat of the meaning of a word, before treating of the
persons to whom the thing meant is applicable. I believe it is not
unusual for writers on both sides of the question to follow this order.
But if any one chooses to follow a different order, I have not the
slightest objection. I am just like the preacher, who, in expounding
Peter's address to the lame man whom he was about to heal, said, "My
friends, this may with equal propriety be translated either silver and
gold, or gold and silver." Indeed, many would choose to handle the
most important part of the subject last, that it might leave the stronger
impression. In oratory, some choose to urge the strongest grounds first,
while others prefer placing them last. Had I thought it useful to express
an opinion as to the comparative importance of the mode and of the sub-
jects of baptism, I would not have accomplished the thing by insinua-
tion, or indirectly ; I have confidence enough to state my meaning in
direct terms. Instead of designing to draw peculiar attention to the
importance of the mode, I consider both mode and subjects altogether
essential to the very existence of this ordinance. If the thing signified
by the word, whatever that may be, is not performed on the subjects, it
cannot be baptism ; for what is baptism but the thing signified by the
word? If the persons baptized are not the persons appointed to be bap-
tized, it cannot be Christian baptism, although in mode it may be per-
fectly correct; for Christian baptism is not every immersion of persons,
but an immersion of certain persons for a certain purpose.
In my turn I shall say, and for the truth of the observation I appeal
to every impartial reader, that this assertion of the writer is very
instructive. It shows most clearly that he is deeply prejudiced, and
that he looks at evidence through a perverted medium. He sees goblins
which have no existence, but in his own disordered imagination. Is
it to be wondered that such a person should see infant sprinkling in
Scripture, when he sees in my work an opinion expressed which never
occurred to myself? Had I lived in former times, and had the writer
been giving an account of my sentiments on baptism, he would have
represented me as holding the opinion referred to. I can believe he is
sincere in taking such a meaning from the order of treating the subject ;
240 REPLY TO REV. E. BICKERSTETH.
but verily it is only at the expense of his judgment that I am able to
exert so much charity.
" This," continues the writer, " is the common tendency in the vehe-
ment advocate of his views." Not only, it seems, is the opinion of
comparative importance expressed by the order of treatment, but it is
vehemence that originates this opinion. Is this assertion founded on
evidence? May not such an opinion be both entertained and expressed
by the coolest advocate of the doctrine ? The writer has expressed an
opinion of the comparative importance of the subjects. Is this to be
ascribed to vehemence?
I have on the subject of baptism, the strongest and most decided
views ; but I have no disproportionate zeal for the mode over that of
the subjects, nor for both mode and subjects over other things. I never
make them the standard for estimating a man's Christianity, nor even
for his advancement in the Divine life. I am sure that Mr. Bickersteth
and I are more united in the things which we both believe to be of the
greatest importance, than we are with many who may agree with us
respectively as to the mode and subjects of baptism. The faith of the
Gospel, and that only, I recognise as the bond of union among Christians.
Is it, then, in the spirit of a Christian to insinuate that, with respect to my
views of baptism, " the ritual prevails over the personal, the tone of the
Jew replaces the spirit of the Christian ?" Can there be a more ground-
less calumny ? I set no value on a rite separate from the import of it.
Is it wise in the Church of England to tax its neighbours with too great
attention to rites? The rites of God's appointment lvalue most highly:
but I value them only as they are applied to the persons for whom God
appointed them, and for the purpose for which God appointed them.
Were all the people of England to ask me to baptize them, I would not
baptize an individual but those appointed by Christ to be baptized.
The mere rite could profit them nothing. In urging compliance with
the appointments of Christ, I never distinguish between things of a
ritual nature and other things. All things commanded by Christ
demand equal obedience. It is enough for me to know that Christ has
commanded immersion. Were it the very least of all his command-
ments, it is to me better than life. This is the spirit with which I read
the Scriptures. I never balance the importance of different things,
with a view to keep the one and violate the other. Every thing that
God commands is important, and bonds and death ought to be endured
rather than disobey.
Here, then, Mr. Bickersteth, I charge your conscience as a Christian.
You have identified yourself with your friend, by adopting his remarks.
I ask you before God, whether you think that the order of handling
the subject of baptism, with respect to mode and subjects, indicates an
opinion of superiority of importance — whether you believe that such an
opinion indicates vehemence, and whether you think it indicates a Jewish
tone, and the absence of a Christian spirit? You must give an account
of these reckless insinuations. It is a very inauspicious commencement
to begin with calumny. "In the former part," says Mr. Bickersteth's
friend, " Mr. C. replies to Mr. Ewing and Dr. Wardlaw, two Independent
REPLY TO REV. E. BICKERSTETH. 241
ministers, advocates of pa^do-baptism, and the latter of them well known
by other works. Mr. Ewing had advanced a strange theory of the deri-
vation of the Greek word bapto, from which he inferred that both the
word itself and its derivative baptizo, apply in their native meaning,
alike to dipping, pouring, or sprinkling, or any application of water.
He maintained further, that immersion was not commonly, if at all, used
in the baptisms mentioned in Scripture. This no sound critic would
maintain, and no consistent churchman is called upon to believe. Mr.
C. refutes effectively these positions of Mr. Ewing ; but the conclusions
he establishes, so far from proving his point, that immersion is essential
to Christian baptism, really prove the exact reverse. A few words will
briefly explain this." However wild and extravagant are Mr. Ewing's
criticisms on the origin and use of the word in dispute, they were at the
time lauded as triumphant and unanswerable by the reviews and the
periodical press. The reviewers now, I am told, are boasting of the
exploits performed in this note. If I have refuted effectively the posi-
tions of Mr. Ewing, I pledge myself to refute as effectively the positions
of this writer. He says, that the conclusions which I have established,
so far from proving my point, that immersion is essential to Christian
baptism, really prove the exact reverse. Here now my antagonist and
I are fairly at issue. If I do not, without stressing a muscle, put him
under my feet, I will consent to forfeit all pretensions to critical
acumen.
In the mean time, I call on the reader to observe an expression in the
above extract. The writer tells us that no consistent churchman is
bound to believe Mr. Ewing's doctrine. In their deviations from truth
on this subject, there is a great difference among the different sects, and
every one is careful to admit no more truth than what is consistent with
his sect. It reminds me of the reply of the chief priests and the elders
to the question of Christ with respect to the baptism of John. " The
baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or from men? And
they reasoned among themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven, he
will say unto us, Why did ye not then believe him? But if we shall
say, Of men, we fear the people ; for all hold John as a prophet. And
they answered Jesus, and said, We cannot tell." Now about the meaning
of the word baptism, ask the Roman Catholic authorities, and they will
at once without hesitation on this matter, freely confess the truth ;
because their church has power to enact and annul. Ask the church of
England the same question, and it comes very near the truth; for it has
sufficient power to effect such a change for wise and pious purposes
Ask others, whose principles bind them to scripture authority exclusively,
and they will force the word to signify pour, or sprinkle, or pop, or purify,
or wash, or make a wash upon, or perform a water ceremony, or some-
thing that will bring the usual mode of practice within the meaning of
the word. But ask the Bible Society, which must reconcile the jarring
claims of all parties, and they will boldly answer with the chief priests,
We cannot tell what it means. It is utterly impossible to translate it ;
transference is the only means of union.
The numerous and conflicting meanings assigned to this word by
31
242 REPLY TO REV. E. BICKERSTETH.
persons who in practice are all identified, afford a self-evidence that they
are all in error. As their practice is the same, it is evidently their
interest to rest it on the same ground ; and there is nothing to lead any
of them to reject a sufficient foundation, if any such could be found.
With all their differences, they are willing enough to avail themselves of
common ground, as far as they think it possible. What is the reason,
then, that, with a common interest, they cannot agree in a common
meaning? The reason obviously is, that no meaning has ever been
given by any of them, which is really and perfectly satisfactory even to
themselves. They are then constantly on the look-out for something
new, and something that will answer more effectually than anything
hitherto alleged. Sprinkle and pour have been obliged to retire, and
various new meanings successively take their place, and maintain au-
thority for a time. Mr. Ewing's pop, however ridiculous it may appear
to Mr. Bickersteth's friend and to me, was lauded with loudest acclama-
tions at the time. But poor pop has now been obliged to retire in dis-
grace, branded with reprobation even by the friends of sprinkling. It
looked very handsome when it came into life; but Dr. Cox and I applied
the dissecting knife, and the skeleton, as it may be seen in the museum,
is very hideous. President Beecher, an American writer, has lately
found that purify is the proper meaning of the term, and I am told that
this is looked on as absolute demonstration.
Now, I ask philosophy, what can be the reason of the never-ending
variation in assigning meaning to this word? Can it be anything else,
but that no meaning can be given which is at once true and suitable ?
Let it be observed, that it is not variation in the medium of proof, but
variation in the very meaning of the term. The sprinklers are evidently
like the infidel Jews, who, rejecting the true Messiah, are ever looking
out for one, and are deceived with every impostor. Pop rises in the
secret chamber in Glasgow, and for a time leads away the world : purify
has spoken from the wilderness in America, and harbingers are found to
usher it into Britain. Will the time never come when God's people will
submit to his commandments with the docility of little children ?
Section II. — " First," says the writer, " let us state the exact question
in dispute. The Baptist maintains that the word baptizo, in its proper
classic usage, means to dip or immerse only. He further asserts, that
when applied to the ordinance of Christ, this idea of a specific mode
remains so essential, that without it the ordinance is void." This is a
very circuitous statement of the question at issue. The simple question
is, what is the meaning of the word ? When this is ascertained, the
question is settled. But I will follow the author in his statement. He
tells us that the Baptist asserts, that when the word is applied to an
ordinance of Christ, the idea of a specific mode remains so essential, that
without it the ordinance is void. He should have stated the thing still
more strongly. I would not say that without immersion the ordinance
of baptism is void. Without immersion it is not the ordinance at all : it
may be a very solemn ceremony ; but it is a ceremony of human invention.
It may be believed by the Lord's people to be an ordinance of Christ ;
REPLY TO REV. E. BICKERSTETH. 243
but this does not make it an ordinance of Christ. If the word signifies
immersion, can there be baptism where there is no immersion? This
would be immersion without immersion. Grant, as the writer does, that
the meaning of the word, when first applied, was immersion, that nothing
but immersion is baptism is a self-evident truth. The contrary is a
contradiction. Whatever is the meaning of the word at the time of its
first application to the ordinance, must be essential to the ordinance ;
for the ordinance is expressed by the word. If a specific mode was
contained in the word when first applied to the ordinance, a specific
mode must for ever remain in it ; for whatever change may take place
afterwards in the meaning of the word, it can have no change with
reference to Christ's ordinance. What he enjoined must remain as he
enjoined it. Now the word when first applied to this ordinance, not
only contained a specific mode, but it expressed nothing but a specific
mode. Mode was its very essence.
I may be told, that on my own principles it is possible that the word
in the progress of its use might change its meaning. I admit this. I
have proved the fact with respect to other words ; and what has been
effected with respect to others, is possible with this. I do not recede a
tittle from what I have taught on the philology of this question. This
surely is granting my present antagonist all he can demand. But this
question has no concern with any change in the meaning of the word,
either possible or actual, after its application to the ordinance. As a
matter of fact, it never underwent the change for which my antagonist
contends. But had it actually undergone such a change, it would not
relieve him. Whatever was the meaning of the word, when first applied
to the ordinance of Christ, is the thing enjoined by Christ. If at first
the command was to immerse, the command must still be to immerse.
But in the view of this writer, the belief of the Baptist is still more
extravagant and paradoxical ; for " he believes, that though the minister
designs solemnly to administer Christ's ordinance, though the believer
designs to receive it, — though the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit
be invoked, — though the element of water be used — unless the whole
body be immersed beneath the element, the whole is vain and nugatory,
and the party remains unbaptized." All true, perfectly true ; and no
axiom is more evident. However sincere we may believe our opponents
to be, still we cannot believe that a person is immersed when he is
sprinkled. The minister may design solemnly to administer Christ's
ordinance, yet if he sprinkles, we cannot believe that he baptizes, be-
cause baptism is immersion. He may be truly washed in the blood of
Christ, when, out of ignorance of the will of his Master, he is sprinkled
instead of being immersed. Sincerity cannot convert one thing into an-
other, and cannot cause sprinkling to be immersion. Intention to fulfil
a command does not fulfil it, if the nature of the command is mistaken.
God will forgive the ignorance of his people, but he will not reckon that
a person has fulfilled his command, who has mistaken his command.
The church at Corinth designed, no doubt, to observe the Lord's
supper ; yet the apostle Paul would not give their observance the name
of Christ's ordinance. A Roman Catholic priest may sincerely design to
244 REPLY TO REV. E. BICKERSTETH.
transubstantiate the wafer into Christ, but notwithstanding his sincerity,
he fails. I have no objection to admit, that persons mistaken about the
mode and subjects of baptism, may be among the most eminent and the
most useful of the servants of God ; but to admit that any one is bap-
tized who is not immersed, is self-contradiction. Immersion is the very
thing enjoined in the ordinance. The design of both the administrator
and the receiver of any rite, can have no effect whatever on the meaning
of this word, and cannot at all change into an ordinance of Christ, what
is not an ordinance of Christ ; neither can the use of the name of the
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, convert sprinkling into baptism. Chivalry
creates its knights with this solemnity ; but does it thereby make the
ceremony a Divine appointment? Is it not a fearful thing, to do in the
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, that which
the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit have not enjoined 1 Men
may endeavour, by adding a load of ceremonies, to compensate for what
they omit, but all is vain. Nor does the use of water make the rite
baptism. All use of water is not baptism : it is only as water is used
according to Christ's commandment, that it is baptism. The sprinkling
of the holy water of the church of Rome is not baptism. To all the
things mentioned by the writer, may be added the cross, and the oil, and
the spittle, with exorcism, and the honey, and the white garments ; yet
where there is no immersion, there is no baptism.
Section III. — Having given us the creed of the Baptist, the writer of
the note next gives us that of the churchman. He does well to restrict
it to the churchman ; for other denominations of Pse do-baptists would
reject it with abhorrence. Here we have the testimony of churchmen,
that the meaning of the word when first applied to the ordinance, is
that for which we contend, and that the burden of the change must rest
on the shoulders of the church ; while we have the testimony of the
other denominations, that the authority of the church is not a valid
foundation. But let us hear the author. " The churchman," says he,
" on the other hand, allows that to dip is the primary and almost con-
stant meaning of the word in classic authors. He further admits, that
probably, if not certainly, in some of the Scripture instances, and possi-
bly in all, immersion was practised. But he believes that when once
the word was regularly applied to the ordinance of Christ, it received a
new and more important element of meaning, and that thenceforward
the idea of one specific mode was no longer essential. He sees that in
Scripture, dipping, pouring, and sprinkling, are all variously used as
signs of spiritual cleansing. He knows that in ceremonial observances,
Christ has enjoined regard to decency, comeliness, order, and conveni-
ence. He is aware that total immersion, in colder climates and tender
age, is less convenient. He believes that Christ has given to his church
authority in precisely such points of outward order, to appoint, under
varying circumstances, as the Spirit of wisdom shall teach and suggest.
He, therefore, concurs fully in the arrangement of the church in this
land, by which dipping is proposed as the standard mode, the more
primitive and fully significant, but in which, for seetoliness or safety,
REPLY TO REV. E. BICKERSTETH. 245
pouring is expressly appointed in certain cases, and sprinkling practi-
cally allowed in all." This churchman must know that other church-
men have gone farther. They have not only admitted that immersion
is the ordinance of Christ, and that nothing but necessity can justify a
departure ; many of them have wished that the original practice should
be revived. Dr. Johnson, in referring to the change in the eucharist,
says, " I think they (Roman Catholics) are as well warranted to make
this alteration, as we are to substitute sprinkling in the room of the
ancient baptism." Petavius, the celebrated Jesuit, speaking of the power
of the church to alter, or impose, says, "And indeed immersion is pro-
perly baptismos, though at present we content ourselves with pouring
water on the head." It is expressly not only on this principle, but on
the authority of the very example of changing immersion into sprink-
ling, that Bossuet vindicates the change in the Lord's supper. Admis-
sions of opponents, however, I entirely disregard on this subject; I can
prove the point with evidence sufficient to satisfy any rational creature.
If any man will be obstinately ignorant, let him be ignorant. This Lord
Jesus Christ will come.
Guarded, however, as this churchman is in his admissions, they are
quite sufficient for my purpose. If, as he admits, immersion was the
meaning of the word at the time of its appropriation to the ordinance ;
and if possibly all Scripture instances of baptism conformed to this, I
need nothing else to establish my point. The word must be used in
reference to the ordinance, in the sense which it possessed at the time
that it was first applied to the ordinance. The laws of language abso-
lutely require this. And, according to the testimony of this candid
churchman, there is no insurmountable difficulty in supposing that every
instance of baptism mentioned in Scripture, was performed by immer-
sion. The difficulties, then, which some have pretended to find on this
supposition, the churchman agrees with me, are all surmountable.
" But," says the writer, " he believes that when once the word was
regularly applied to the ordinance of Christ, it received a new and more
important element of meaning, and that thenceforward the idea of one
specific mode was no longer essential." This is a most marvellous doc-
trine. If the word at the time Christ appointed the ordinance signified
immersion, will it lose that signification the moment that Christ enjoins
immersion? Does a command to use a specific mode imply that no
specific mode is to be observed, but that all modes are equally legiti-
mate ? Whatever element it may be supposed is added to the significa-
tion of a word on its appropriation, it surely does not lose any element,
much less its very essence. The appropriation of a word restricts its
application on certain subjects, but it does not divest it of its meaning.
The appropriation of this word confines it to the ordinance in question,
but it is to that ordinance only as it exists when it is appropriated. Men
may change the ordinance, and change the meaning of the word, but
such change has no effect on the meaning of the word as used in Scrip-
ture for this ordinance. The writer here entirely mistakes the principle
of appropriation which I have explained, and which he thinks he can
use against himself. Appropriation gave the word a particular direction
246 REPLY TO REV. E. BICKERSTETH.
to a particular subject, but did not divest the word of its meaning. This
may be illustrated from every instance of appropriation. When words
are appropriated, they are indeed liable to change their meaning with
every corresponding change in the thing to which they are appropriated ;
but as respects the Scriptures there can be a change in neither. The
ordinance remains the same there, and the meaning of its name can
never, as to Scripture use, be less or more. I care not if it were in
actual proof, that pouring or sprinking was substituted for immersion
by those who used the Greek language ; and that those modes were
actually called by the name of immersion. These facts could avail
nothing with respect to the meaning of the word in the ordinance of
Christ. It is here that the perspicacity of the writer of the note utterly
fails. The possible or actual use of a word in after times, he alleges as
its meaning in the ordinance of Christ. "Arise, and be baptized," says
Ananias to Paul. Now, if at the time the word signified immersion, is
not immersion the thing enjoined ? Can this command be fulfilled by
being sprinkled? Should the word afterwards change its meaning,
does such change avail anything in relieving from obedience to the
command ?
" The churchman," the writer tells us, " sees that in Scripture, dip-
ping, pouring, and sprinkling, are all variously used as signs of spiritual
cleansing." And did riot Christ see this as clearly as the churchman?
If dipping, pouring, and sprinkling are all equally applicable to this
ordinance, why did Christ enjoin one of them only ? The churchman's
practice is a censure on the Son of God. If the churchman has good
reasons, as he says he has, for changing the mode of this ordinance,
Christ could not have good reasons for adopting it. Was it not as easy
in the time of Christ to pour or sprinkle, as it was to immerse? If he
foresaw that there would in future times, and in certain countries, be
reasons for a change, why did he not himself provide for this? The
churchman makes himself more keen-sighted than the institutor of the
ordinance. The Baptist sees as clearly as the churchman, that pouring
and sprinkling are in Scripture used for cleansing as well as dipping,
and he has no objection to them in any ordinance, if Christ had appoint-
ed them. The Baptist cannot presume to use any discretion in altering
the commandments of God. Besides, he sees that burial and resurrec-
tion, as well as cleansing, are figured in the ordinance of baptism. The
churchman himself admits the same thing. Dipping, pouring, and
sprinkling, were indeed all used under the law; but had the Jews a right
to substitute the one for the other? When they were commanded to dip,
did they fulfil by sprinkling? When commanded to spirinkle, did they
dip ? If indeed the mode in baptism is emblematical, and my opponent
admits that it is emblematical, it cannot be changed ; to change it would
be to destroy the emblem.
The churchman, it seems, knows that in " ceremonial observances
Christ has enjoined regard to decency, comeliness, order, and convenience."
Here the churchman has undoubtedly the advantage ; for he knows what
nobody knows but himself and the pope. He knows that he can annul
what Christ has commanded, and substitute something more decent,
REPLY TO REV. E. BICKERSTETH. 247
comely, orderly, and convenient, in its stead. On this ground, then, let
sprinkling rest, along with all the other trumpery of human invention.
But if this writer refers to 1 Cor. xiv. 40, as his sanction for this
authority, it will not serve him. This refers not to ceremonial observ-
ances, more than other things ; and the thing directly spoken of, is not
of a ceremonial nature at ail. The passage gives no authority to appoint
or alter observances of any kind ; but directs that all the ordinances or
observances of a church, should be attended to in order. This was
violated in the church at Corinth, where one had a psalm, and another a
doctrine, &c, at the same time. It is the very essence of popery to claim
a right to annul or alter the commandments of Christ. A rite appointed
by Christ is no more to be tampered with, than any commandment in
the decalogue. But with this subject I have nothing to do here. My
present business is to prove the meaning of the word baptism in the
commandment of Christ. Whether Christ has given any power to men
to annul this commandment, and substitute another rite, is a question to
be argued on other grounds. In the mean time, I am very well pleased
that I have driven sprinkling and pouring out of the Scriptures, and
obliged them to take shelter with the figments of popery, in church
authority.
The churchman is also " aware, that total immersion in colder climates
and tender age is less convenient." All churchmen are not aware of
this. With respect to tender age, the Baptist is not concerned to convince
his opponents that it is safe to immerse newly-born infants. This he
will undertake to prove, when it is proved that newly-born infants are
commanded to be baptized. Were it really true, that in any circum-
stances immersion would be dangerous to health, what would follow?
Not that sprinkling should be substituted for immersion ; but that the
person could not be baptized at all. If the ordinance of Christ is impos-
sible, except at the hazard of life, the law of God does not require it.
The churchman " believes that Christ has given to his church
authority, in precisely such points of outward order, to appoint, under
varying circumstances, as the Spirit of wisdom shall teach or suggest."
Can anything be more provokingly intolerable than this way of reason-
ing? Way of reasoning ! Such a pretence for avoiding reasoning ! Is
the churchman to foist on us his creed, instead of giving us his argu-
ments? But there is inconsistency in the author's own management of
this business. If the church has authority from Christ to alter things
of a ritual nature according to its own wisdom, why does the writer
strain to sanction the change with the meaning of the word? The
writer, then, finds himself in a quagmire, and still as he begins to sink
in one spot he shifts with all speed to another. Here we have an express
avowal of authority from Christ to change his ritual appointments. If
this is not popery I do not know where popery is to be found. Alas,
alas! and is this Mr. Bickersteth? But my work is done. When I have
driven my antagonist to take refuge among the mummery of the man of
sin. my triumph is complete. All I engaged to do was to prove that the
word in question signifies to immerse. This writer, instead of fairly
meeting me on this, alleges that his church has power to alter the mode,
248 REPLY TO REV. E. BICKERSTETH.
and in certain cases to substitute pouring or sprinkling for immersion.
This has nothing to do with the question. This might be true without
in the least affecting my doctrine, with respect to the meaning of the
word in dispute. Whether it is true or not must be argued on other
ground. No wonder that Puseyism spreads in the church of England,
when such a sentiment as this can be avowed by such a man as Mr.
Bickersteth.
Now I appeal to every impartial reader, whether there can be a doubt
as to my victory, when my antagonist is obliged to shelter his practice
under the authority of his church? If reasoning on the meaning of the
word could have established his point, would he have recourse to church
authority? If church authority has changed the mode, why seek a
sanction in the meaning of the word ? If the meaning of the word
sanctions the practice, why admit a change by church authority ? This
is self-contradiction. Other denominations of paedo-baptists will reject
this mode of defence ; but ought it not to excite in them a suspicion,
that their reliance on the meaning of the word is not well founded? The
church of England, by its present practice, is as much concerned as the
other denominations of paedo-baptists to vindicate pouring or sprinkling
as being baptism. Now, if it was in their opinion possible to do this by
an appeal to the word, would they have recourse to the authority of the
church, to change the mode ? The very claim admits a change. Is
not this a tacit confession that, in their opinion, there is no relief for
sprinkling, or pouring, in criticism? Does any one doubt, that if
criticism could do anything, the church of England is not as able as
other denominations to avail itself of its aid? Is all the learning of
paedo-baptists confined to other denominations, that they alone attempt
to find their practice in the word? If learning could prove that pouring
and sprinkling could be brought under the meaning of the word in dis-
pute, would the church of England fail to prove it? I maintain that
the church of England is substantially on my side of the question. By
resting on the authority of the church to substitute pouring or sprink-
ling for immersion they have decided the question of criticism against
themselves. This certainly ought to bring those denominations of
paedo-baptists to reflection, who have no pretensions to church power.
The error of the church of England in its defence of pouring, or
sprinkling, is much less hurtful, as regards all passages of Scripture
which concern the ordinance itself, than that of other paedo-baptists ; but
in another point of view it is much worse. It is worse, because it lays
a foundation for the alteration of other ordinances, and for piles of mum-
mery to an indefinite extent ; but it does comparatively little injury, in
explaining passages of Scripture that refer to baptism. The churchman
is not obliged to force any of them, or avoid their true import. He can
explain them according to their true meaning, and take edification from
the mode, as an emblem of the union of believers with Christ, in his
death, burial, and resurrection. This is an incalculable advantage,
which the church of England possesses over other denominations of
paedo-baptists : it contributes much to the production of clear, accurate,
and extensive views of the Gospel. On the other hand, other denomi-
REPLY TO REV. E. BICKERSTETH. 249
nations that cannot claim the authority of the church for altering the
institutions of Christ, are obliged to find pouring or sprinkling in the
meaning of the word ; and consequently to torture language with the
utmost violence. In this way, also, some of the finest features of the
Gospel, which are beautifully displayed in the emblem of baptism, are
entirely kept out of view.
It is often thought strange that there should be such a difference, for
such a length of time, among good men, on so simple a question as the
meaning of a common word. But with respect to persons who hold
the views of my present antagonist, the thing is not at all strange. How
can there be agreement when the parties do not judge by the same
standard ? My antagonist builds on the authority of his church, to alter
the mode of ritual ordinances: I utterly reject this foundation, and seek
authority only in the meaning of the word. The saints in heaven could
not agree on any subject, should they adopt different standards of judg-
ment. If Mr. Bickersteth, and his friends, have authority to alter the
mode of a ritual ordinance, they may undoubtedly pour or sprinkle in
defiance of the meaning of any word. If I do not choose to claim a
like authority, I must be contented to observe the ordinance as Christ
enjoined it.
Section IV. — " Let us now," says the writer, " produce Mr. C.'s own
conclusions, and examine which of these views his critical inquiries
confirm. They shall, to avoid all error, be stated in his own words.
' 1st. Bapto, except when it signifies to dye, denotes mode, and nothing
but mode. 2dly. Bapto and baptizo are exactly the same in meaning,
as to increase or diminution of the action. That the one is more or
less than the other, as to mode or frequency, is a groundless conceit.
3rdly. There is one important difference. Bapto is never used to denote
the ordinance of baptism, and baptizo never signifies to dye. The
primitive word has two meanings, — the primary, to dip : the secondary,
to dye. But the derivative is formed to modify the primary only.
4thly. Bapto means also to dye. And although this meaning arose from
the mode of dyeing by dipping, yet the word has come by appropriation
to denote dyeing without reference to mode. As this point is of material
consequence in this controversy, I shall establish it by examples that
put it beyond question. Nothing in the history of words is more com-
mon than to enlarge or diminish their signification. Ideas not originally
included are often affixed, while others drop ideas originally asserted.
In this way, bapto, from signifying mere mode, came to be applied to a
certain operation usually performed in that mode. From signifying to
dip, it came to signify to dye by dipping, because this was the way in
which things were usually dyed. And afterwards, from dyeing by dip-
ping, it came to denote dyeing in any manner. A like process may be
shown in the history of a thousand other words.' " On this the writer
makes the following observations : — " These remarks are distinct and
clear. They are also substantially true. But it is most strange the
clear-headed author does not see how expressly they overthrow his own
theory. He has given us the strongest warrant for extending the
32
250 REPLY TO REV. E. BICKERSTETH.
meaning of baptizo, by showing us the like extension in its primitive,
bapto, from the very same cause. He has proved that the idea of mode
is secondary, and non-essential, when baptizo is applied to the sacrament
of Christ, by proving the very same of its primitive, bapto, when used
in the sense of dyeing. The author has left no link wanting in his own
refutation. The two words originally signify the same as to mode.
Bapto acquires the secondary sense of dyeing; baptizo acquires the
secondary sense of baptizing. Bapto, from dyeing by dipping, comes
to denote dyeing in any manner. Baptizo, from baptizing by dipping,
comes to denote baptizing in any manner. What analogy can be more
perfect ? What justification of the practice of the church can be more
complete?"
Here my opponent thinks he has irrefragably refuted me out of my
own mouth. He has turned my critical doctrines against myself, and
showed that instead of proving my own views of the meaning of the
word in dispute, I have unanswerably proved his meaning. But with
the utmost ease I shall wrest my weapons out of his hands. I have
shown the principles that operate in the appropriation of words, and
that words often wander far from their original import, being sometimes
restricted in their use, and sometimes most capriciously extended ; still,
however, even in their wildest freaks, guided by principle, and capable
of being definitely ascertained. I exemplified this in the case of bapto;
and my present antagonist thinks he can turn the force of all that I
have said, to demonstrate that there is a like change in the meaning
of baptizo. There is not, he thinks, a link in the chain wanting. In
this, however, he is altogether mistaken. He wants an essential link.
Use has actually conferred the alleged meaning on bapto — use has not
conferred the alleged meaning on baptizo. Now where is his demon-
stration ? He might allege the authority of my philosophy to prove the
possibility of such a change in the meaning of the word ; but without
proof that the process has actually taken place in the history of the word,
this is of no service to his cause. Here is a poor Jew. I admit that
though he is not now worth a farthing, he may, possibly, before his
death, be another Rothschild. At the end of thirty or forty years, my
antagonist comes to me, saying, " I will prove by your own admissions
that the Jew of whom we were speaking is now as rich as Rothschild.
Did you not forty years ago admit that it was possible, tl&t this man
might in time become so rich?" I admit this, but I want proof that
the thing admitted to be possible, has actually taken place. Just so
with respect to these words. Give me the same proof that baptizo, in
the New Testament, has been brought to designate the ordinance of
Christ without reference to mode, as there is that bapto signifies to dye,
and I will at once warrant the change by my philosophy. The gold
coin called a sovereign is now worth twenty shillings. I admit that at
some future time it may pass for fifteen shillings, or that it may be
raised to the value of twenty-five shillings. Will this prove at any spe-
cified time that either of these things has actually taken place?
But I shall examine the conclusions of my opponent step by step.
Speaking of my proof of the secondary meaning of bapto, he says, " He
REPLY TO REV. E. BICKERSTETH. 251
has given us the strongest warrant for extending the meaning of baptizo,
by showing us the like extension in its primitive, bapto, from the very
same cause." I have given a warrant that usage has such a power, but
I have given no warrant that, in this instance, it has availed itself of
that power. On the contrary, I deny that use has ever exercised this
power on this word. I have shown a process by which a word may
receive a secondary signification, totally excluding the idea that is
essential to the primary. But does this imply that any particular word
has actually undergone such process, and received such secondary mean-
ing? If the history of the word does not manifest such meaning, it has
no warrant.
" He has proved," says the writer, " that the idea of mode is secondary
and non-essential, when baptizo is applied to the sacrament of Christ,
by proving the very same of its primitive bapto when used in the sense
of dyeing." By what process does this conclusion follow? Because it
is proved that bapto has come to a secondary meaning which excludes
mode, does it follow that when baptizo is appropriated to an ordinance
of Christ, it excludes mode ? He might as well allege, that because
bapto signifies to dye, baptizo, in the ordinance of baptism, must signify
to dye. Bapto has, without, doubt, in its history, taken the secondary
meaning of dyeing. Baptizo, when applied to the ordinance of Christ,
has not laid aside its meaning as to mode. Appropriation produces no
such effect. But what does the writer mean by secondary and non-
essential ? Were it e»en true that mode is secondary, it does not thereby
become non-essential.
" The author," says the writer, " has left no link in the chain wanting
in his own refutation." A writer when he speaks thus, should be very
sure that he stands on firm ground, and that he thoroughly understands
what he is saying. That he speaks at random, I can show in a moment.
But let us examine the chain. " The two words originally signify the
same thing as to mode." Quite correct. Let this be the first link of
the chain. " Bapto acquires the secondary sense of dyeing." This is
my doctrine. I admit that it has this meaning totally independent of
mode. Let this link, then, be made as strong as the smith can forge it;
it is made of the very best iron. The next link is, " baptizo acquires the
secondary sense of baptizing." This link is pot metal ; it will break the
first snap. What does he mean by the word baptize in these circum-
stances ? Does he mean that it designates the ordinance to which it
refers without the expression of mode? If he does, he is wrong: if he
does not, it is nothing to his purpose. What can baptize in its appro-
priated application mean, but to immerse for a particular purpose ? Is
this anything but the primary meaning of the word with a particular
reference? The writer confounds the appropriation of a word, with a
secondary meaning acquired by gradual use. When a word is appro-
priated, it is taken in its proper sense at the time of its appropriation :
when a word has acquired a secondary sense by use, it has departed
from its primary sense. To make the thing still more plain, let us
take another word for illustration, and suppose that raino, to sprinkle,
had been used. According to our author's way of criticising, it would
252 REPLY TO REV. E. BICKERSTETH.
be said, the word primarily signifies to sprinkle, but as applied to the
ordinance of Christ, it signifies secondarily to rantize. Now what can
rantize mean, in such circumstances, but to sprinkle for a particular
purpose — to sprinkle with reference to this ordinance? Would there be
here any departure from the primary meaning of sprinkle ? Let us again
illustrate by the passover. The Jews were commanded to sprinkle the
blood on the door-posts. Now does sprinkle in this command lose the
idea of mode, and refer to the performance of the rite without reference
to sprinkling? It is shameful for a scholar to trifle: it is awful for a
Christian to cavil. Surely a very child may see, that the appropria-
tion of a word to a particular purpose, does not divest that word of its
meaning. The only difference is, that it gives the meaning a peculiar
reference to a particular object. The author of this note applies my
doctrine to his purpose, only because he does not thoroughly understand
it. He has undoubtedly made some progress ; and if he continues in
this teachable temper, I will more readily acknowledge him to be my
disciple, than I will newly-born infants to be called the disciples of
Christ.
The next link of the chain is, "Bapto, from dyeing by dipping, comes
to denote dyeing in any manner." This link is as strong as adamant. I
admit that I have taught this ; but this chain is like the toes of Nebu-
chadnezzar's image, partly of iron and partly of miry clay. The next
link is of clay of the most brittle constitution. "Baptizo, from baptizing
by dipping, comes to denote baptizing in any manner." This is mere
mud. Where is the proof that the process has actually taken place?
Had the change taken place, my doctrine woidd recognise it ; but there
must be proof of the actual change. Even were it in proof that the
change had actually taken place, though my doctrine must recognise it,
it would not prove that anything but immersion is scripture baptism.
Any change in the word, after its application to the ordinance, is of
no authority, as to its use in reference to the ordinance. Had sprinkling
been universally adopted at any period, in place of immersion, by those
who spoke the Greek language; and had the word which now designates
immersion been applied to sprinkling, the fact would have no weight at
all, in proving that sprinkling is warranted by the Scriptures. The
meaning of the word, in reference to the ordinance, must be determined
by its meaning at the time of its application to the ordinance. Its mean-
ing in the ordinance must be determined by its sense in the language at
the period of appropriation, not by its use in church history in after
ages. Does not any one see that a secondary meaning conferred after
the institution of the ordinance, can have no bearing on the question ?
If in its appropriation to the ordinance, it signified immerse, as the writer
admits, immersion it must be for ever, as far as Christ's authority is re-
garded. Is it not enjoined in the sense of the word at the time ? No
after change in the rite, and in the meaning of the word according to
the change of the rite, can affect the meaning of the word as it stands in
Christ's institution. I am utterly at a loss to conceive how any person
of ordinary capacity, can attempt to fasten on a word in Scripture, a
meaning which use is supposed to have conferred on the word in after
REPLY TO REV. E. BICKERSTETH. 253
times. This is the same thing as to expound some words in our transla-
tion of Scripture by their present use, instead of their old English ac-
ceptation. What should we think of an expositor who should expound
the word charity, in Scripture, agreeably to its present use in the lan-
guage ? To make blindness itself see this truth, let us take an illustration.
Suppose that inspiration had recorded the ordinance in English, and that
the mode had been at first sprinkling ; but that in process of time it had
been universally superseded by immersion ; — how would the secondary
meaning of sprinkling in this ordinance, determine the meaning of the
word sprinkle in the original institution? Would this be a warrant to
neglect the scriptural mode of the ordinance, and to observe it according
to after use? Will obstinacy never yield to argument? Will Chris-
tians for ever resist the commandments of Christ? And is Mr. Bicker-
steth the man to sanction such perverted criticism, in order to make
void the law of God as to the mode of a Divine ordinance? Sophistry
may invent evasions that for a time may impose on the ignorant, the
unwary, and the prejudiced; but it is a fearful thing to lead away the
disciples of Christ from implicit and universal obedience to his com-
mandments. Jesus has said, that whosoever shall annul one of the least
of his commandments, and teach men so, the same shall be called the
least in the kingdom of heaven. Reviewers, and periodicals, and pre-
judiced religious sects, may laud such efforts, but Jesus will at last judge
the world, and determine between truth and error. One mode is the
same to me as another, had not God interposed his authority ; but I
cannot force the word of God to sanction human errors. I read the
word of God not to find a sanction for the practice of any church — not
to find a sanction for my own pratice ; but to know what God requires,
that to this I may conform my practice.
Section V. — My opponent proceeds next to the subjects of baptism.
Here he observes with respect to my treatise, that this part of it is less
than half the length of the former. Is this also in his estimation an
evidence of my view of comparative importance ?
The writer confines his remarks to my view of the import of the
commission. " And first," says he, " let us hear Mr. C.'s own statement :
' If our minds were not influenced by prejudice, this inquiry (that is,
into the subjects of baptism,) would not be tedious. We have the answer
obviously in the words of the apostolic commission. The persons whom
it warrants to be baptized, are scholars of Christ, have believed in him
for salvation. If this needed confirmation, we have it in the record by
Mark. The persons whom Matthew calls disciples, Mark calls believers.
None then are warranted to be baptized but disciples or believers. I
will risk the credit of my understanding on showing, that, according to
this commission, believers only are to be baptized. I would gainsay
an angel from heaven, who should say that this commission may ex-
tend to the baptism of any but believers. Here I stand entrenched,
and I defy the ingenuity of earth and hell to drive me from my posi-
tion. If infants are baptized, it is from another commission, and it
is another baptism, founded on another principle. Even if there were
254 REPLY TO REV. E. BICKERSTETH.
such, when these infants believe the gospel, they must be baptized
according to the command, Matt, xxviii., without regard to their bap-
tism in infancy. The commission commands all men to be baptized,
on believing the Gospel. Who is he that dares substitute infant bap-
tism for the baptism of believers? Whoever he is, he is the man
who by his tradition makes void the law of God.' " I had said that
five minutes is sufficient to determine the subjects of baptism from the
commission in either Matthew or Luke; this the writer thinks very
strange, especially as I allow that so great a majority of Christians do
not agree with me on this subject. But I will now reduce the time to
half the allowance. I will grant no more than two minutes and a half,
and still I may have time to spare. My antagonist should have had the
perspicacity to see that I do not rest on the time necessary to examine
the foundations of the baptism of analogy and tradition ; I have
shown that if there is such a baptism, it cannot shelter itself under the
commission.
On my statements referred to by my antagonist, he says, " These are
hard words and strong charges ; and strange to say, they have not a
syllable in the text on which to rest ; nothing but the bare assertion of
the writer." I will make good every syllable in my statement. Let us
then hear the grounds of the assertion. " The commission of Christ,"
says he, " does not contain the words, Go and baptize believers." Does
the writer mean that baptism is not in Mark xvi. 16, enjoined on be-
lievers? This must be his meaning, or his assertion would have no
bearing on the subject. In direct opposition to this, I maintain that
baptism is expressly enjoined on believers in this passage, * Go ye into
all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature. He that believ-
eth, and is baptized, shall be saved." Does the writer mean, that because
the word relating to the ordinance in question is used as a participle, and
not in the imperative mood, there is no command expressed ? If he
does, I forbear to speak as I think of such an assertion. If anything
else could be forcibly taken out of his words, I should think it an insult
to a scholar to understand him in this sense ; and as a matter of fact, I
hesitated so ascribe this meaning to him till I saw that he himself ex-
plained it as his meaning in the sequel. Is it unknown to this writer,
that what is usually effected by what are called grammatical modes,
may be effected in various other ways ; and that it is often optional in
expressing a command to employ either the imperative mood or a
participle ? Even in this very commission, the command to go into all
the world is expressed by the participle. But there is hardly a page of
any sort of writing, in any language, from which I could not exemplify
this. I wish I had not found this in a writing sanctioned by Mr. Bicker-
steth ; for I cannot avoid saying that it is either gross ignorance or
downwright cavilling. I will make the most illiterate man in England
refute this criticism. Suppose a rebellion had taken place in Ireland,
and her Majesty had sent a commission, saying, " Go, and proclaim a
pardon to the nation ; he that lays down his arms, and takes an oath of
allegiance, shall be saved." Would the most illiterate man in the empire
say, that this is not a command to lay down the arms of rebellion, and
REPLY TO REV. E. BICKERSTETH. 255
to take an oath of allegiance? What a shame is it for learned men to
make themselves ignorant of what is known to the most uncultivated
common sense? But how awful is it for Christians to cavil with the
language of the Spirit of God, in order to sanction the practices of men
with the authority of institutions of Christ ! Surely this writer cannot
believe that there is no command given by Christ with respect to baptism.
And if it is not here, where is it? How astonishing is it that Christians
will adopt such means of opposition to the ordinances of Christ!
"These are hard words and strong charges." But will any one show
me how, with a proper regard to truth, I can say less ? I would gladly
say nothing ; but when I must speak I must designate things by their
proper names. When I see perversion so manifest, must I hide my eyes,
or pretend to think that it is all legitimate reasoning ? No command in
the commission to baptize ! And does a good cause require such a
paradox to maintain it ? Christians in some things do not see, because
they will not see. Lord Nelson when once in pursuit, refused to obey the
signal of recall ; but to excuse himself he put the telescope to one of his
eyes that was blind, and turning it towards the object, swore that he did
not see the signal ; and Christians sometimes do not see the signal
because they put the telescope to the blind eye. I believe Lord Nelson
was successful on the occasion, but shall Christians expect success in
acting contrary to the authority of their Commander? Such conduct
always implies contempt for the skill of Him who gave the orders.
" Still less," continues my antagonist with respect to the words of the
commission in Mark, " Go and baptize believers only." Such an addition
is not necessary in order to confine baptism to believers. If none but
believers are enjoined to be baptized, none but believers are, according
to the commission, to be baptized. If there is a baptism for others, it
must have other proof. Has my antagonist, then, the hardihood to
assert, that there is nothing in the commission on which my assertion
can rest ? My assertions in every tittle are true beyond the power of
the perversions of sophistry.
" The only command expressed on the subject," says the writer, " is
to baptize all nations." There is no such command either expressed or
implied. The command in Mark is, to preach the Gospel to every
creature, baptizing the believers. The command according to Matthew
is, to disciple all nations, baptizing the disciples. The phraseology,
" disciple all nations, baptizing them," necessarily confines the baptism
to the persons who shall be discipled. The antecedent to the pro-
noun is the word disciples, taken, as grammarians speak, out of
the verb disciple. The very nature of the thing requires this; it is
obviously only disciples that they could baptize. Unbelievers would
not submit to baptism. I will undertake to show the greatest bump-
kin in England, that the restriction is necessarily in the expression.
" Go," says a corn-merchant to his clerks, " buy all the grain in
the market, storing it," &c. Does any idiot ask, what grain is to
be stored? Is it not the grain that is bought, and not the grain that
they could not obtain, or was bought by others? Could there arise a
question on this subject ? What would be thought of one of the clerks,
256 REPLY TO REV. E. BICKERSTETH.
who should ask, " Do you mean, Sir, that I am to store all the grain
in the market, whether I can buy it or not?" Shame, shame, shame !
Will the Lord's people trifle in reasoning about the commands of their
Master, in a manner that would disgrace idiotcy ? Shall they stave off
conviction by quibbles, not to be exemplified in the most unprincipled
chicanery ?
It is evident that the writer's own conscience is no more touched than
is mine, in restricting the baptism to disciples instead of extending it to
unbelievers in the nations. It is merely a stratagem to bring me to
terms. If I allow him to bring in infants as disciples, he will very
willingly allow me to exclude adult unbelievers. " The only limitation,"
says he, " to be learned by inference, is previous discipleship." Now
this expressly grants that there is such a limitation, and it is perfectly
indifferent how the limitation is made out ; it makes no difference whether
it is inferential or express. But if it is an inference, it must be a neces-
sary inference, else it has no authority. An inference might exclude
unbelievers, but no inference can bring anything into the word disciple,
that is not already in it.
" The words in Mark," says my antagonist, " contain no command to
baptize at all ; they are a promise to baptized believers." I have dis-
proved this assertion ; I have shown it to be unworthy of a scholar and
of a Christian. It is so utterly unscholar-like, that had not the author
himself developed his meaning, I should have ascribed it to him with
great hesitation, even when substantially avowed in previous statements.
The apostles understood it as a command, for they commanded the dis-
ciples to be baptized. Indeed, a promise from Christ to baptized persons
implies a command for the institution ; for God does not give a promise
to will-worship. But to make out a command, I seek for aid from
nothing but the words of the commission. " There is no ground in the
commission," says the writer, " for saying that St. Mark calls the same
persons believers, whom St. Matthew calls disciples. So far from afford-
ing an impregnable position, there is not a corner of the passage on
which to rest the proof." What does the writer mean by this? Does
he mean that the words of the commission in Matthew do not expressly
assert, that those called disciples by him, are by Mark called believers ;
and that the words of the commission in Mark do not assert that those
called believers by him, are by Matthew called disciples? This is very
true, but for such a declaration we would not seek a corner of the
passage. Who would expect such an assertion? Can it never be
known that two accounts correspond, except there is an express declara-
tion of the fact? then it could not be known that there is a correspond-
ence in any two accounts in the different gospels. But on whatever
occasions the things referred to by the two evangelists in this instance
were spoken, can there be a doubt that they refer to the same thing ?
Are they not both an account of the sending out of the apostles to
preach and baptize? Can there be any doubt that the two accounts
substantially agree, and that the persons to be baptized are the same in
both? Would Mark's account of the commission exclude any whom
Matthew's account admits? Can any conscience be so hardened, as to
REPLY TO REV. E. BICKERSTETH. 257
refuse to admit that the disciples of Matthew are the believers of Mark ?
And does Mr. Bickersteth countenance such an effort to make void the
law of God 1 Is he the man who thus labours to bring darkness out of
light ? Are the rites of a favourite church to he supported by tramp-
ling under foot the commandments of God?
" In fact," says my opponent, " the commission of itself, waiving other
arguments, rather implies than excludes infant baptism. Taken in the
narrowest sense the words allow, it commands all disciples to be bap-
tized. Now a disciple is simply a learner. And the infants of pious
and believing parents are, from their very birth, learners of Christ;
they are by Providence placed immediately under the teaching of those
who are themselves taught by Christ, and who are his appointed channels
for imparting Divine truth to them. They are, in the strictest sense of
the word, mathetai. Learners they are by the necessity of their age
and by the privilege of believing parents, learners of Christ. To shut
them out of the ordinance is, then, to reject those whom Christ has him-
self included." Of all the extravagances that I have ever met with in
controversy, this is the most extravagant. Newly-born infants are
scholars in the school of Christ! ! ! Sir, they are not scholars in any
school ; they know nothing of Christ, and can learn nothing of the
things of his kingdom. A disciple and master, or teacher, are correlative
terms, and in the very nature of things every disciple virtually recog-
nises the master as fit to teach. Newly-born infants are not fit to
understand a teacher on any subject, and cannot be disciples in any
sense. But to say that newly-born infants are disciples of Christ, is to
outrage common sense, Do they know anything of Christ more than
they do of Mahomet? Can the writer produce a single example to
justify his assertion? Is there any instance in which newly-born
infants are called the disciples of Christ? Is there any instance in
which newly-born infants are called the disciples of any teacher ? Who
were the disciples of Pythagoras, of Plato, and of all the ancient philo-
sophers? Were they not persons who recognised them as their
teachers, and received their doctrine ? Who were the disciples of John
the Baptist? Were they not persons who believed in him as a teacher
sent from God, and submitted to his doctrine ? Who were called the
disciples of Christ when he was on earth? Were they not the persons
who believed in him, and who followed him as their teacher ? Since
the birth of Cain was it ever heard that any newly-born infant was
called the disciple of any man 1 Does this writer suppose that we will
take his mere assertions as proof? Why does he not justify the alleged
meaning by examples? Another person may as legitimately allege
that new-born infants are the disciples of Newton, or any of the philo-
sophers. He might as reasonably allege that they are mathematicians,
musicians, or astronomers. I meet the assertion, then, not only as
false, but as fanatical beyond the usual bounds of fanaticism. I meet
it with indignation, because it manifests a disposition to hold a tenet,
not only by forcing Scripture, but by sacrificing common sense ; I turn
away from it as from the ravings of insanity. Give me argument, and
I will answer by argument; but I cannot put down extravagance but
33
258 REPLY TO REV. E. BICKERSTETH.
by exposing it. I solemnly declare, that it pains me to be obliged to
write in this way with respect to a thing recognised by Mr. Bickersteth ;
but I cannot expose madness but by showing it to be madness. I once
met a simpleton, who answered as if he knew every thing that he was
asked. After some time, I asked him if he understood Greek. " O ay,"
was his reply. I then said, "Paddy, were you ever in the moon?"
" O ay," said Paddy, with the utmost gravity of countenance. I fol-
lowed poor Paddy no farther : and what am I to say to the man who
asserts that newly-born infants are scholars in the school of Christ ?
Verily I can see no more sanity in this, than I do in the assertion of
innocent Paddy. I hold up this assertion to the reprobation of sober
sense in all mankind. Had such an assertion been made in defence of
an unpopular truth, the author would be hooted out of society. But
great sects screen their advocates in all their wildest conceits. You
could not put the Faquirs to shame in the land of the Faquirs ; it is
only the advocates of unpopular truth who are obliged to stand in awe
of common sense.
Were it at all necessary to my purpose, it would be easy to show,
not only that the word disciple implies teaching in the correlate, and
capability of learning in the disciple, but that it is applied to the fol-
lowers of Christ as it did to the followers of the philosophers ; implying
that they have received his distinguishing doctrine, and submit to his
laws. A man might have learned much from the philosophers who
could not be called a disciple. To be called a disciple of Christ, implies
not only to have learned something from Christ, but to have learned
the doctrine of salvation, and to have submitted in all things to his
teaching. But I do not need this, and therefore will pass it.
Could the writer satisfy my conscience that newly-born infants are
disciples of Christ, he would relieve me of a considerable part of the
burden of the cross of Christ. Nothing is so offensive in the country in
which I reside, as to refuse to baptize infants. Men will not understand
it in any other way than as denying infant salvation. I have no pleasure
in being odious to the world ; still less in being disliked even by the
people of God. But I cannot wrest the Scriptures in order to please
men, nor to retain popularity even among Christians. I have lost this
world : I do not wish to lose both worlds. What Christ has shown me
in his word, I cannot conceal or pervert : I must not be ashamed of his
word more than of himself. I fight for no church, for no party. I do
not make even my past attainments my standard; I am willing to
advance or recede, as I am made to hear the word of command. When
Christ says " Go," I will go : when he says " Come," I will come. If
any man can show me to be wrong in anything, I shall be swift in
changing my course. Truth is my treasure.
But the writer himself betrays his own want of confidence in this
resource. If newly-born infants are really disciples, what need of any
other proof for their baptism but the commission itself? Why is not
the battle fought here ? Why has he not collected all his force to bear
on this part ? If he proves that newly-born infants are disciples, is not
the battle won? Obstinacy itself would not resist any longer. The
REPLY TO REV. E. BICKERSTETH. 259
newly-born infant is, on this principle, baptized as expressly by the com-
mission, as its parent. But Psedo-baptists do not act on this principle.
This writer himself, instead of opening a battery from the commission,
aims only to show that they are not excluded by the commission. His
chief reliance is an analogy and tradition, which can have no bearing
on the commission, more than they have influence on the tides. He
endeavours to force me to a compromise on the commission. If I will
not allow him to modify it with analogy and tradition, he will force me
to baptize the nations, believers and unbelievers. In this he is incon-
sistent with himself; he does not believe that unbelieving nations should
be baptized ; and the limitation to the disciples can have no influence
in extending the meaning of the term. If disciples only are to be bap-
tized, infants are of necessity excluded. Now this shows that his own
conscience is not his own disciple. If newly-born infants are directly
and expressly included among the disciples of the commission, why does
he seek to modify the disciples of the commission by analogy and tra-
dition? These two modes of defence destroy each other. Indeed, if
infants are disciples, what temptation has he to make the baptism liter-
ally extend to unbelieving nations? All this management clearly shows
that he has not himself full reliance on the discipleship of newly-born
infants.
I ask the conscience of every Christian, as a matter of fact, is it as
disciples that newly-born infants are generally baptized ? Are they bap-
tized because they know Christ, have believed in his salvation and
character, and have submitted themselves entirely to his authority? Is
not this mode of defence merely a desperate resource, to be employed in
dispute, but which has no influence on the conscience? Do they who
practise infant baptism believe that the children of Christians know more
of Christ when they are born, than do the children of unbelievers, or
even heathens?
"Nay," says my opponent, "the argument may be carried still fur-
ther. We have reasoned as if the words had been, Go, disciple all na-
tions, and baptize the disciples, &c. But these are not the exact terms.
Our Lord's command is, Go, and disciple all nations, baptizing them,
&c. If we press the force of the letter with Mr. C, setting aside all
scripture analogy and argument, and all the testimony of the church,
we should be led rather to the compulsory baptism of the ungodly, than
to the exclusion of infants. It is reason, scripture analogy, and atten-
tion to the spirit of the command, which alone warrant any limitation ;
and these alike require that the only restriction should be drawn from
the previous clause, and that the term disciples should be there inter-
preted in the largest sense." I have already answered this evasion ; I
have shown that the grammar of every day's conversation gives my
interpretation to the words. Nothing but a spirit of the meanest cavil-
ling would think of extending this command by force to the ungodly. I
required neither analogy, nor the testimony of the church, to confine the
command to those who are discipled out of the nations. This is the
legitimate meaning of the expression. And as I have not been indebted
to the testimony of these two witnesses, I will not receive their testimony
260 REPLY TO REV. E. BICKERSTETH.
in extending the meaning of the word disciples to infants. On this they
are not competent witnesses ; the use of the word alone can determine
this. But there is falsehood in the very face of this evasion. The com-
mand to disciple all nations expressly excludes force, and it is in con-
nexion with their discipleship that their baptism is enjoined. If they
cannot be made disciples by force, they are not to be baptized by force ;
for it is after they are discipled, and as they are discipled, that they are
to be baptized. I ask the conscience of my antagonist, if he thinks that
the language of the commission commands the ungodly in the nations
to be baptized by force. If not, is it not a fearful thing to handle the
word of God deceitfully 1 Does he say that the principle that I employ
to exclude infants from the word disciples, will compel the baptism of
the ungodly ? This is so false that it has not even a shadow of truth.
These two things depend on different grounds of evidence. Whether
disciple has such an extent in its meaning, depends on the use of the
word : the other depends on the grammar of the sentence. Even were
it granted, that analogy and tradition establish another baptism, still
such baptism could not be brought by interpretation under the commis-
sion. No analogy can show that infants are included in a command to
baptize disciples ; no tradition can witness that a command to baptize
disciples includes the baptism of infants. The thing is a matter of in-
terpretation, not of analogy or testimony. Let tradition and analogy
have their own baptism, if they will, but it shall have no lodgment in
the commission. My antagonist says, that the term disciples should be
interpreted in the largest sense : by all means : I will give it the largest
sense that he can prove that use has ever conferred on it. But though
an Englishman, he is thus like the Irish; no matter how good measure
you give him, he must have a douragh (that is, something additional).
He will not be satisfied with me if I do not throw in the infants as
a douragh.
The commission, as it is recorded by Mark, commands believers to
be baptized. Now if there is an analogical and traditionary baptism
in infancy, such analogical and traditionary baptism does not coincide
with the baptism of the commission ; and as soon as the person is brought
to believe to the saving of the soul, he is enjoined by all the authority of
Jesus to be baptized into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of
the Holy Spirit. Should a thousand baptisms be proved from other
sources, they could not make void the baptism of the commission. But
as we are assured that there is only one baptism in the religion of Christ,
the baptism of analogy and tradition must be a human figment. This
is the ground on which I have placed the subject in my treatise. Many
a lever has been employed to move it off the foundation ; but it remains
like a rock lashed by the waves of the ocean.
It is grievous that Christians are not agreed about the ordinances of
Christ ; but can union ever be expected as long as they reason on the
principles of my opponent 1 Can that man want proof for anything he
wishes to prove, who asserts that newly-born infants are disciples of
Christ ? Can he be at a loss in justifying the change of any ordinance
Gf Christ, when he justifies the substitution of pouring, or sprinkling,
REPLY TO REV. E. BICKERSTETH. 261
for immersion, by the authority of his church ? If such principles of
reasoning are not abandoned, the day of judgment will come and find
us still divided.
That the utmost forbearance ought to be exercised on this and every
other subject on which there is a difference among Christians, I not only
freely admit, but strenuously contend; but when Christians submit
their reasonings to influence others, these reasonings must be tried by
the most rigorous test of truth. To our brethren in error we ought to
manifest forbearance; to the defence of their errors no indulgence is due.
If their reasonings are not only inconclusive, but if they lay a foundation
for other errors, they must be exposed in all their deformity for the
advantage of the whole Christian brotherhood. We should not judge
the individual, but we should unsparingly condemn the false reasoning
and the false principles on which his errors rest. Error is more noxious
in a Christian than in a man of the world ; its influence tends to with-
draw believers from the authority of Christ. The salvation of infants
I do not question ; but their salvation does not depend on their faith and
baptism. Faith and baptism are enjoined only on those who hear the
Gospel. But I cannot consent to show my faith in the salvation of
infants by administering to them a rite which Jesus has not appointed for
them. An act of will-worship in the parents will not bring the infants
nearer heaven. God abominates all human invention in his service.
Let Christian parents pray for their children from their birth and before
their birth; let them teach them as soon as they are capable of learning:
but who hath required them to baptize them? Too much cannot be
said to urge Christian parents to faithfulness to their offspring ; but no
advantage can be conferred by performing on them a rite which, in their
case, Jesus has not enjoined. Could evidence of infant baptism be pre-
sented from the Scriptures, I am as ready to receive it as I was before
I gave up the practice. Every inducement is on that side ; but I cannot
do in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,
what Father, Son, and Spirit have not commanded.
CHAPTER V.
INCOMPETENCY OF DR. HENDERSON AS AN UMPIRE ON THE PHILOLOGY
OF THE "WORD BAPTISM, PROVED FROM THE UNSOUNDNESS AND EX-
TRAVAGANCE OF THE PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION IMPLIED IN HIS
LETTER TO MR. BRANDRAM, WITH REFERENCE TO THAT QUESTION.
Section I. — False principles of interpretation are the chief source of
the corruption of the truths and ordinances of Scripture. It is not pos-
sible that conclusions so very different on almost every question, should
be grounded on the same words, if on all sides the same sound and self-
evident laws of language were employed in the deduction. The meaning
of the word baptism has no difficulties arising from its use, or its origin ;
and never has been questioned by any of the great masters of Greek
literature. The claims of immersion never have been disputed but from
the necessity of shielding present practice ; and on grounds subversive
of sound criticism. Immersion can be evaded only by trampling on
first principles, and by establishing false principles. A more flagrant
manifestation of this I have never seen, than in Dr. Henderson's letter
to Mr. Brandram. He grounds on principles of interpretation which,
if admitted, would render all language definitely inexplicable. This
may be supposed a learned question, but I engage to take my unlearned
reader with me. To understand my arguments, and estimate their force,
I demand nothing but a sound and an unprejudiced mind.
" With respect to the Greek word baptizo," says Dr. Henderson,
" after having read almost every work that professes to throw any light
upon it, and carefully examined all the passages in which both it and its
derivatives occur in the sacred volume, and a very considerable number
of those in which it is found in classical authors ; we are free to confess
we have not yet fallen in with a single instance in which it can be satis-
factorily proved, that it signifies a submersion of the whole body, without,
at the same time, conveying the idea that the submersion was permanent,
i. e. that the body thus submerged, sunk to rise no more.* So far as
has yet been ascertained, the word is never used by any ancient author
in the sense of one person performing an act of submersion upon another ;
* "It may be proper to observe, that even if it could be proved that the term was
used in Greek works of classical antiquity, in the sense of plunging a person entirely in
water, this would not determine the meaning attached to it in the New Testament. It
is an acknowledged principle in sacred philology, that numerous Greek words are em-
ployed by the writers of the New Testament in an altogether appropriated or religious
acceptation."
262
REPLY TO DR. HENDERSON. 263
yet it is necessary that we bring this idea with us to the reading of the
New Testament, before we can affix to baptizo, as there occurring, the
sense of immersion."
On this single passage I would rest the proof of my charge. It teems
with false principles of interpretation.
1. It implies that in order to prove that, with respect to baptism, the
word baptizo signifies immersion, it is necessary to produce an instance
in which it is so applied to the human body. Now, though we can
comply with this requisition, it is arbitrary and unphilological. I refuse
to admit the principle of interpretation. The immersion of a dog is as
good an example as the immersion of a saint. What the thing is which
is to be immersed, we are to learn, not from the word baptizo, but from
the words in connexion.
2. This observation of Dr. H. assumes as a first principle, that no
examples can be admitted as proof of the meaning of this word, in
reference to the ordinance of baptism, but such as refer to the immersion
of the whole body. Now the extent of the immersion has nothing to do
with the meaning of the word. The meaning of the word is perfectly
the same, whether the action of the verb extends to the whole or only a
part of the object. Whether in baptism the whole body, or only a part
of it, is to be immersed, we do not inquire at this word.
3. This observation of Dr. H. implies, that when the word applies to
cases in which the person or thing immersed remains permanently under
water, it is the word itself which imports the permanency of the submer-
sion. This is ridiculously false. The permanency of the submersion
must be indicated by something else. The word in question has nothing
to do with the after state of the person or thing immersed. Whether
the person or thing said to be baptized lies permanently at the bottom,
or immediately rises, deponent saith not. Shall the word which signifies
to immerse, also signify to emerge ? But though we refuse to submit to
this principle of interpretation, we could easily comply with it. How
could Dr. H. forget the case of Naaman? Did he lie permanently under
water? Was he not immersed seven times? Even with respect to
Aristobulus, who was eventually drowned, it is obvious from the account
in Josephus that he was several times dipped before he was entirely suf-
focated. If so, the action of the verb was performed on him without
destroying him. He might have been saved after having been immersed.
It was not the word baptizo which destroyed him. It was the keeping
him too long under the water after immersion. " Always pressing him
down when swimming, and immersing him as in sport, they did not give
over till they altogether suffocated him," page 458. This shows that he
might have been immersed without suffocation, and that suffocation was
the result of several immersions.
4. The observation on which I am now animadverting implies, that
in order to prove that the word signifies to immerse in reference to
baptism, we must produce an example in every thing corresponding to
the Christian ordinance. Nothing of this kind is necessary ; it is quite
enough to prove that the word has this signification in reference to
anything. From the word itself we cannot learn that even water is
264 REPLY TO DR. HENDERSON.
to be used in the ordinance. An example in which the thing is im-
mersed in oil, or in melted metal, is as good as an example from the
water of the river Jordan. Herod, in his last illness, was placed by his
physicians in a vessel of oil; and had this been called a baptism, it
would have been as good an example, as if it had been done in water, as
a sacred ordinance. From the examples of the occurrence of this word,
we inquire merely the meaning of the word ; from other words we learn
what is essential to the rite.
5. The observation quoted from Dr. H. implies, that the application
of the word to persons and to things affects the meaning of the word.
How is the meaning of the word affected by the objects of its reference?
It has perfectly the same signification when applied to persons, that it
has when applied to things.
6. Dr. H. here assumes as a first principle, that in order to prove
immersion as the mode of baptism, we must give an example in which
the word is used by ancient authors, in cases where one person immerses
another. Was ever demand more unreasonable? Was ever a law of
criticism more monstrously absurd? What has the meaning of the
word to do with the persons by whom the action of the verb is to be
performed ? Is it the word itself that is to determine this ? Dr. H.
absurdly confounds the meaning of the word that designates this ordi-
nance, with the whole pattern of the rite in all its parts and circum-
stances. Are we to expect in Greek literature a pattern for the whole
rite of Christian baptism ? Can anything be more extravagantly unrea-
sonable than this demand ? From Greek literature we are to learn the
meaning of the word, and from the New Testament we are to learn
whether we are to baptize ourselves or be baptized by others! Can
sobriety designate such observations as anything but perverse cavilling
to avoid the law of Christ ? Can such arguments really weigh in any
conscience?
7. Dr. H. here demands from ancient authors an example in which
one person immerses another, yet an example from ancient authors to
determine the meaning of the word he accounts of no value. This is
inconsistent and absurd. Ancient authors are competent to determine
the meaning of a word in their time, which must still be received as the
meaning of the word, except a change is proved ; they are no authority,
whether in a Christian rite one person is to perform an act of immersion
on another, or every one is to immerse himself. The ancients are called
in to do what they are not competent to do ; and they are refused to be
heard in the testimony which they are competent to give. Could any
evidence satisfy men who are so unreasonable? Could any kind of"
proof overcome such obstinacy ? Can the man be in search of truth,
who will not allow Greek writers to be an authority for the meaning of
a word in their own language, while he considers their authority essen-
tial for the proof of something enjoined in a Christian rite ? Should
one rise from the dead, he could not satisfy incredulity so perverse.
8. Were it admitted as a first principle, that in order to prove that
baptizo signifies to immerse, in reference to the ordinance of baptism, an
example must be given in which the word is used when one person
REPLY TO DR. HENDERSON. 265
performs an act of immersion upon another, followed by immediate
emersion, does not Mr. H. perceive that this equally destroys the claims
of purify, the sense for which he now contends ? Can an instance be
given from ancient authors in which this is used to designate an act of
purification performed by one person on another? In making such
a demand, he may have thought himself secure against retaliation, by
relying on the rites of purification under the law. But a little per-
spicacity would have enabled him to see that this is a false refuge.
Instances may be produced in abundance in which one person purifies
another ; but the case requires that such purification shall be designated
by the word in question. Can he, then, give one instance from ancient
authors, in which the word designates an act of purification as performed
by one person on another ? Now can anything be more unreasonable
than that obstinacy which demands from a meaning which it rejects,
a condition which is equally wanting to that meaning which it receives
as demonstrably certain? Can that mind be in a proper state for
weighing the evidence of truth, that is so partially balanced? This
is a suicidal argument. But could President Beecher or Dr. H. produce
authority from use proving that the word in question signifies to purify,
I would make no farther demand in order to admit its competency.
Upon the whole, no word in any language could have its meaning
definitely ascertained on the principles involved in the passage quoted.
The author demands that the words should determine the objects to be
subjected to the action of the verb, the persons by whom the action of
the verb is to be performed, and the substance in which the action is
performed by the agent or the object of the action. He finds in the verb
the baptized person, the baptizer, and the water in which the baptism
is performed. The word itself has nothing to do with any of these
things, whatever its meaning may be supposed to be. All I require from
the word is, the nature of the action imported by it : every thing else
I will rest on its proper basis. Persons who do not understand this, are
not qualified to enter into the discussion of this, or any other philological
question. In reality, the most illiterate men of good sense are better
qualified to find out truth, than critics who adopt false principles of
interpretation. The man who determines the meaning of Scripture, as
he does that of the letter of his friend, is more likely to find it than the
man who adopts chimerical laws of interpretation, that will enable him
to prove any conceit, however forced ; and deny any truth, however
obvious. I maintain that on Dr. Henderson's principles of interpreta-
tion, there is not a word in language whose meaning might not be
evaded. Here, then, the battle must be fought. It is useless to contend
about the meaning of words in certain situations, till we have agreed on
the great principles which determine the meaning of words. As long as
our opponents hold the principles of interpretation on which they now
act, it is impossible for them rationally to find truth. They may some-
times stagger on it, but it will be merely at random.
Dr. H. refers us to Mr. Ewing's Greek Lexicon, " where," he says,
" the whole philological question is treated with an accuracy and ability
which we have not met with in any other work." He gives us in a note,
34
266 REPLY TO DR. HENDERSON.
" the admirable classification of meanings which the learned author
presents under baptizo." Now this will afford us another criterion, by
which we may estimate the qualifications of Dr. H. to assume the chair
of an umpire on this question.
Section II. — It is not my intention in this place to discuss the mean-
ing of the word : this I have done on many occasions. I shall here
confine myself to the science of the classification.
The first meaning is, " / plunge or sink completely wider water.
Used only in the passive voice and in a neuter sense." Now here is
false philology at the very threshold. The completeness of the immer-
sion, as respects the whole of the object, is not expressed by the word
at all ; but is known from the connexion. The same verb, the same
voice, &c, could be used with respect to a person sinking in a quagmire
up to the knees. The verb does not express that the whole of the
object was subjected to its action, nor does it express that the action
was performed in water. This mischievous philology brings into the
word things that are not expressed by it, but by other words in the
connexion.
2. There is a false principle in supposing that the meaning of a verb
in one voice is not authority for its meaning in another. When it is
said of a ship that " it dips," a foreigner from this example would be
warranted in supposing that when he finds the same verb in the active
or passive voice, it has the same meaning actively or passively.
3. Nor is it true, as Mr. Ewing thinks it is, that in the examples
referred to, the verb has, strictly speaking, a neuter sense. In a free
translation it may be rendered sink; but the word still has its own
proper signification, and some force is supposed to be the cause of the
immersion.
4. Mr. Ewing says, " Neither in these examples, nor in any similar
passages, does it appear that the putting tinder water actively, as done
by a different agent to the object put under water, is meant to be
expressed by baptizo, but merely the neuter sense of sinking or going
down."
In none of the instances referred to by Mr. Ewing, is the thing
immersed an agent in its own immersion. A person sinking in water
unwillingly, is not an agent. A ship sinking by the winds is not an
agent in its own immersion. When the thing is expressed passively, as
in immersion, it is the weight of the object, or the force of the storm,
that is the baptizer.
But without any regard to this, and granting that the verb is strictly
neuter in such examples, can anything be more absurd than to expect
that occurrences of a word in which all agency is excluded, should
prove a certain kind of agency? If in such cases there can be no
agency, we do not look for agency. But is this any reason why the
same verb, in an active or passive sense, should not admit the particular
agency in question? The verb itself, as I before showed, has nothing
to do with the agent who performs its action ; and if the verb is used
to signify plunge in a neuter sense, why may it not signify plunge in an
REPLY TO DR. HENDERSON. 267
active sense? No sound critic would have made this observation. Are
not such examples, in every view in which they can be considered, evi-
dence that the word in an active sense signifies to immerse 1
When a person says, " I fell over the bridge and was immersed in the
river," shall a foreigner show his critical skill in the English language
by alleging that — " Here immersed is used in the passive voice and in a
neuter sense ; and therefore it does not appear that the putting under
water actively, as done by a different agent to the object put under
water, is meant to be expressed by the word immerse ?" Would not an
Englishman laugh at him ? Shall learned criticism for ever trample on
common sense?
5. " Ceasing to float," is one of the expressions which Mr. Ewing
uses for this sense of the word. This implies that the word imports a
floating previous to sinking. Now when this is the case, it is no part
of the meaning of the word ; it is as applicable when the object sinks
immediately, as when it floats long before it sinks.
6. Another expression by which Mr. Ewing characterises this sink-
ing, is, " I cover with water by sinking down." There is neither covering
nor ivater in the word. All this false philology proceeds on the absurd
supposition, that a verb embraces in its meaning every thing in con-
nexion with it, in every occurrence. The adoption of such a principle
of interpretation must lead to confusion and error ; it is impossible to
follow it without being led away from truth. It betrays ignorance of
the first principles of language. Not contented with ascertaining what
is the action imported by the verb, these philologists embrace in its
meaning, the person by whom the action of the verb is performed, — the
person or thing upon whom the action of the verb is performed, — the
substance in which the action of the verb is performed, — the previous
state of the object on which the action of the verb is performed, — the
effect produced on the object by the action of the verb, — the extent to
which the object of the action of the verb is exposed to the action, &c.
They might as well make the word designate the whole Athanasian creed.
The second meaning in Mr. Ewing's admirable classification is, " I
cover partially with water." " I am covered with water to a certain
degree." Doubtless it is a very scientific classification that gives a dif-
ferent meaning when it is applied to a part of an object, from what it
has when it is applied to the whole. What has the word to do with the
extent or degree of its application to its object? It is not the word itself
that informs us that its action is applied to the whole of an object, or to
a part : this is done by words in connexion. The word itself has per-
fectly the same meaning when it is applied to a part of an object, as
when it is applied to the whole. In the examples given by Mr. Ewing, is
there not information in express words determining the extent of the
immersion ? " It happened that their march was in the water the whole
day, being baptized or immersed up to the middle." Is it from the word
baptized here that we learn that the immersion was partial ? Is it not
expressly asserted by the words " up to the middle?" Where is the dif-
ference in the signification of the word baptize in this instance, from
instances in which it applies to things wholly immersed ?
&68 REPLY TO DR. HENDERSON.
The other example is, " The foot-soldiers passed over with difficulty,
baptized as far up as the breast." Is it not the expression " as far up as
the breast," that informs us of the extent of the immersion ? Surely a
very child will know that the word dip has the same meaning in the ex-
pression, " I was dipped over the head," and in the expression, " I was
dipped up to the chin." Is there a man or child in England that would
assign two different meanings to the word in these situations? It blas-
phemes science, it outrages common sense, to call this classification an
admirable classification of meanings. Were it not that my friends in
England think I am too severe, I would certainly speak strongly here.
But I will be as mild as the summer breeze.
I shall enable the unlearned reader to appreciate the merit of this part
of the classification, by an example of the use of the English word im-
merse, taken from the Londonderry Sentinel. " On Tuesday morning,
about ten o'clock, as his Royal Highness Prince Albert was skating on
the spacious water in the grounds of Buckingham Palace, his Royal
Highness unfortunately passed over some rotten ice, which immediately
broke under him, and he was immersed to the chin in water." Now
does not every child know that the word immersed here has exactly the
same signification, as if the Prince had been immersed over the head?
That he was only partially immersed is known not from the word im-
mersed, but from the words "up to the chin." What an admirable clas-
sification, then, is it, that would have given a different meaning to the
word immersed had the water been a little deeper and covered his Royal
Highness over the head ! I had scarcely copied the last extract, when I
read in the next Sentinel, that his Royal Highness " was immersed over
head and ears in the water." Now would any one who speaks English,
think that the word immersed has a different meaning in these two ex-
tracts? Surely the word immerse has nothing to do with the extent of
the immersion. Indeed, according to the philology of Mr. Ewing and
Dr. Henderson, every line in the length of the Prince's body, and he is
said to be five feet eleven inches, would give a different meaning to the
word immerse, according to the depth of the immersion. Were I not
determined to be extravagantly gentle, I should think it my duty to lash
such trifling with the utmost severity.
But there is an absurdity on the very face of this classification, which
renders it self-evidently false. It is not possible that the same word can
designate both the whole and a part of an object. If one meaning
designates that the action of the verb is applied to the whole of an object,
how can another meaning of the same word designate that the action is
confined to a part? And if it is not the word itself, but something in
the connexion, which determines this, then the designation is not in the
word.
The above extract will apply to the first meaning in the classification
also. The word immersed, it may be said, is here used in the passive
voice, and in what Mr. Ewing and Dr. Henderson would call a neuter
sense. " Neither in this example, then, nor in any similar passages,
does it appear that the putting under water actively, as done by a differ-
ent agent to the object put under water, is meant to be expressed by the
REPLY TO DR. HENDERSON. 269
verb immerse." Can any trifling be more extravagant than this ? Will
not every man who understands the English language, consider this as
determining the meaning of the word? Will any man expect that a
neuter sense will also be an active sense ? The meaning of the word
immerse is to be learned from every occurrence of it in the language ;
whether in a particular rite one man is to immerse another, or every
man is to immerse himself, cannot be learned by the word, but by other
information. As long as our opponents allow themselves to trifle so
egregiously, no evidence could convince them. On similar principles
they might deny every doctrine in Christianity. As far as they have
truth, they are not indebted to their laws of interpretation.
The third meaning in Mr. Ewing's classification is, " I overwhelm or
cover with water by rushing, flowing, or pouring upon." Science, in
classing the meanings of a word, will always ascertain the primary
meaning, if it is possible ; showing how every secondary meaning flows
from this: amidst much diversity it will generally discover a family
likeness. It will never ascribe a secondary meaning as long as the
primary will serve ; and a third or fourth meaning will not be assigned
as long as the primary or secondary will apply to all examples. No
meaning will be admitted that is not in full evidence from examples
which necessarily imply it. These requisitions are self-evidently just ;
and no sound philologist will question them. Without them, definiteness
of expression would be impossible. Had Mr. Evving attended to them,
instead of eight meanings to this word, he would not have found a
second.
Nothing is more easy than to reduce to the primary meaning of the
word, all the examples which Mr. Evving brings to justify his third
meaning. I have on other occasions disposed of every example of this
kind. I shall here teach the unlearned reader to do the work for him-
self, by justifying my criticism by an example from his own language.
Mr. Ewing's first example is, " To arrive at certain desert places full of
bulrushes and sea-weeds, which, when it is ebb, are not immersed, but
when it is full tide, are inundated." Now, even with ourselves, when a
part of the country is overflowed by a river, is it not quite common to
say that it is submerged by the river ? Is it possible to give a more
satisfactory justification of any expression ?
In the " Pastoral Annals" we have the following sentence : " The
peat, the common fuel of the Irish peasant, remained in great part uncut,
for the incessant rains of the past summer had exceedingly impeded that
important branch of labour. Much which had undergone the first pro-
cess of sowing, abandoned from the same cause, and submerged in the
accumulating waters, or drenched by torrents, was irrecoverably lost for
all purposes of firing," p. 184. Will the most stupid man in England
understand the author as intending to say, that the peat was actually
dipped under the water, and not that the water came around it ? But
what no wise man or fool will say, with respect to the language which
he speaks, a controversialist will solemnly allege as decisive evidence
with respect to a dead language. Let a foreigner, with a smattering of
English, try his hand on the above extract, on Mr. Ewing's principles
270 REPLY TO DR. HENDERSON.
of interpretation " Here," says the learned critic, " the word suomerge
cannot signify, as some foolishly contend, to sink under, but to wet, cover
with water," &c. The peat is not put under the water, but the water
falls on the peat, or flows over it. The word, then, here properly
signifies, T overwhelm or cover with water by showering down, or flowing
over." Can anything be more demonstrative than this philosophical
criticism ? It is a truly admirable specimen of classification of meaning.
The other two examples, alleged by Mr. Ewing to justify the third
meaning, are real immersions. "Of the land animals, a great part
overtaken by the river are destroyed, being immersed." The force of
the current immersed them in the river. " The river rushing down
with a stronger current immersed many," &c. There is not a shadow of
difficulty in such examples.
But in no view can Mr. Ewing's classification in this point be looked
upon as scientific. What connexion is there between plunge and pour
upon ? How does the latter rise out of the former ? Mr. Ewing may
fancy that he connects these meanings by making them both signify to
cover with water. But there is no water nor covering in the word.
To pour upon and to plunge have no more relation than any two words
in the language. Besides, an object may have something poured on it,
when it is not covered with it. Still farther, a word which designates
to cover in a certain mode, cannot designate to cover in a different
mode. This would render the word unintelligible. If it signifies to
cover by plunging in, it cannot signify to cover by pouring on.
Again, this meaning includes three meanings, more different than the
first meaning is from the second. Rushing, flowing, and pouring upon,
are all different modes, while there is no difference in the mode, nor in
the meaning of the word in any respect, when it is applied to the whole
of an object, and when it is applied only to a part. A horizontal
inundation is as different from pouring upon, as either of them is from
immersion.
Again, this classification makes the same word designate plunge and
pour upon. The same general word may apply in a general sense to
both, but no word can designate both.
Besides, what relief do any of these meanings bring to Mr. Ewing
and to Dr. Henderson? The thing said to be baptized is, in every
instance, even according to their own showing, covered with the water
as far as it is said to be baptized. Is there anything like this in their
mode of baptism? Let it be observed that Mr. Ewing does not here
make the word to signify to pour upon, but to cover with tvater by
pouring upon. If the object is not covered with water, it comes not
under this meaning.
The fourth meaning in Mr. Ewing's classification is, " / drench or
impregnate with liquor by affusion, I pour abundantly upon, so as to wet
thoroughly, I infuse." Here the lexicographer mistakes the figurative
for the literal application of the word. Is drunkenness produced by
drenching or affusion? Is a man made drunk by pouring wine abund-
antly upon him ? or by wetting him with wine ? or by infusing wine
into him, as you drench a horse? And I say the same thing with
REPLY TO DR. HENDERSON. 271
respect to immersion. When a drunken man is s*id to be immersed in
wine, there is no literal dipping. Whatever may be the meaning of the
word, this is a figurative application of it, and not a distinct meaning.
It is to me overwhelmingly astonishing that a man like Mr. Ewing
should expound such phrases as "drenched with wine," as a literal
affusion, pouring upon, wetting, or infusion. I do not expound the phrase
in the original as a literal immersion ; the immersion is only figurative.
Now a scientific philologist would first settle the literal meaning of the
word, and then understand the figure in conformity to this. The figu-
rative use of a word gives it no new meaning in the language, and con-
sequently is not properly the province of the lexicographer. It needs
not to be explained ; for a good metaphor contains its own light. There
is no need to hold up a candle to enable us to see the sun. Its beauties
may be pointed out, but if it needs explanation it would be degraded.
Besides, to explain or enumerate all the possible metaphorical applica-
tions of a word is impossible. They are innumerable, and every person
has a right to issue as many new ones as he chooses, if he does it with
good effect.
All the examples under this alleged meaning are evidently figurative.
No person, I presume, after the thing is pointed out, will question this.
If so, whether they are to be understood in reference to literal drenching,
or affusion, or pouring upon, or infusion, or immersion, must be settled
by the examples of the literal meaning of the word. I have no right to
understand them in reference to immersion, till I have proved that this
is the literal meaning of the word ; and Mr. Ewing has no right to refer
them to drenching, &c, till he has by the use of the language proved
that this word literally has this meaning. This he has not done : this
he cannot do. He has, then, built his house upon the sand.
Mr. Ewing's fourth meaning, I observe also, includes different mean-
ings. Is affusion the same as infusion?
The fifth meaning in the classification is : "I oppress or overwhelm by
bringing burthens, affliction, or distress upon." This use of the word,
Mr. Ewing himself allows to be metaphorical. If so, why is it a differ-
ent class of meanings? Why is it distinguished from the fourth class?
Surely the fourth class is as really figurative as the fifth. Whether we
say " drenched with wine," or " immersed in wine," the expressions are
equally metaphorical, and both equally so with overwhelmed with debt, or
immersed in debt. Even if figurative applications are to be considered
different meanings, why are not all figurative meanings included in one
class? Is every distinct figure to be a distinct class of meanings?
Then, instead of one class or two classes of metaphorical meanings,
we shall have classes innumerable. To be immersed in debt, or to be
overwhelmed with debt, will be one class — to be immersed in love will be
another, to be immersed in trouble will be another, to be immersed in
business will be another, to be immersed in cares will be another, to be
immersed in pleasure will be another, to be immersed in icine will be
another, &c. &c. Each of these is as distinct from the others, as
the fifth class is from the fourth. This surely is an " admirable classi-
fication."
212 REPL1 TO DR. HENDERSON.
Mr. Ewing unaccountably takes it for granted, that, in such meta-
phorical expressions, the likeness is between the objects in the figure
themselves. But this likeness is between their effects. I may say with
equal propriety of a drunken man, that he is drenched with wine, or
that he is immersed in wine ; but by neither expression do I intend to
show the way in which the liquor was applied to him. Were this the
case, I could not use both expressions of the same man at the same time ;
for the modes are different, and it is only in one mode that the wine
was applied. Overivhelmedwith debt, and immersed in debt, are equally
good figures, but neither of them is intended to show the way in which
debt was incurred by the debtor. We may be drowned in debt, sunk in
debt, buried in debt, burdened with debt, &c. &c. Surely, then, such
figures are not expressive of the way in which debt comes on the debtor.
I venture to assert, that there is no instance in which the most unlettered
savage of the forest makes the same mistake that is here made by the
lexicographer.
But what does Mr. Ewing gain by these his two classes of meanings?
Even were it granted that they import a difference of mode, all the
examples, even according to himself, unite in showing that the things
which are the objects of the action of the verb, are completely covered
with water. Has this any appearance of countenancing a baptism by
sprinkling a few drops?
" That it is used in the sense of pouring upon, or into," says Dr. H.,
" every one must be convinced who will be at the pains to consult the
important article in Ewing's Greek Lexicon under Baptizo, 3, 4, 5."
Now I have taken a great deal of pains with these three classes of sup-
posed meanings, and I affirm that there is not one example under any
of them that will justify this assertion ; and I think all my impartial
readers will now have the same conviction. The fourth and fifth classes
are figurative, and the third is immersion. But even admitting that it
is overwhelming, rushing, flowing, inundating, it is not pouring. The
overflowing of the tide, the rushing of a torrent, the overwhelming of a
flood, are modes of the motion of a fluid very different from pouring a
fluid upon an object. The examples given, then, to support pouring, as
one of the meanings of this word, have not even the appearance of
yielding their countenance. In every thing I complain of a want of
philosophy in this able, accurate, and admirable specimen of lexicography.
Mr. Ewing's sixth class of meanings is, " I wash in general." This
meaning is not assigned on sound philological principles. Every exam-
ple brought to establish it will explain with perfect ease on the ground
that the word signifies to immerse. If so, such examples cannot be a
safe foundation for a new meaning. This I hold to be a self-evident
canon, universally applicable to the words of all languages. A new
meaning should not be admitted while authenticated meanings will
serve. Give up this axiom, and universal confusion and uncertainty
will ensue on all subjects. The sixth meaning, then, is dismissed, not
on the merits, but for want of proof. The history of the word does not
prove that it obtained such a meaning. The proof from 2 Kings v.
10, 14, proceeds on the principle that words which may in any circum-
REPLY TO DR. HENDERSON. 273
stances be interchanged, are perfectly synonymous. After what I have
said on this subject to President Beecher, it is useless to give another
lesson. The man who grounds on this foundation is not a philologist,
though he should speak as many languages as were spoken on the day
of Pentecost.
But I will enable the most unlearned reader to perceive the fallacy
of this argument, by reducing the example to the English language.
" Go," says superstition to the devotee, " bathe seven times in the holy
well : he went and dipped himself seven times in Saint Ronan's well,
and returned cured." There we see that our word dip is capable of the
very use that is here made of the corresponding word in Greek. Now
a foreigner, interpreting English on the principles of Mr. Ewing and
Dr. Henderson, would, from this example, prove to demonstration that
the English words, bathe and dip, are perfectly synonymous.
With respect to Judith xii. 7, Mr. Ewing says : " In this case, the
washing could not have been done by immersion, being done at a spring
or a fountain." Why so, Mr. Ewing? Is it not possible to get timber
in the forest? Cannot immersion be performed either in or at a foun-
tain ? " The Syrians," says Dr. Joseph Wolffe, as quoted by the
Baptist Magazine, " baptize the children in the following manner. The
child is placed in the fountain, so that a part of the body is in the
water ; then the priest three times takes water in his hand, and pours
it out on the child's head, repeating at each time the name of one Per-
son in the Trinity : after this the body is immersed." Were not the
Castalian nymphs said to bathe themselves in the fountain ? Can any-
thing be more absurd than to allege that immersion cannot be performed
at a fountain?
Mr. Ewing's other example, instead of having any appearance of
supporting him, is directly and palpably against him. It is not " wash
thyself in the sea," as Mr. Ewing translates, but " dip thyself into the
sea." Mr. Ewing builds a bridge on pillars of ice.
The seventh meaning in Mr. Ewing's classification is : " 1 wash for
the special purpose of symbolical, ritual, or ceremonial purif cation."
I have on different occasions disposed of the examples alleged by Mr.
Ewing for this meaning. My business here is merely with the science
of the classification. Now, even admitting that the word does sometimes
signify to wash, there is no propriety in making symbolical washing a
different class of meaning. The purpose of the washing is not a part
of the signification of the word, but is intimated by other words in the
connexion. In the phrase, washed from a dead body, the word washed
has the same meaning that it has in the sixth class ; and the symbolical
or ritual nature of the washing is known from the additional words
which express it. That the washing is for a holy or religious purpose,
is no part of the meaning of the word. Must a musician, when he
designs to perform a sacred tune, put on holy fiddle-strings ? Washing
is washing, to whatever the word may be applied.
The eighth meaning in Mr. Ewing's classification is : " / administer
the ordinance of Christian baptism, I baptize." This gives the word no
meaning at all, but merely as the designation of an ordinance, without
35
274 REPLY TO DR. HENDERSON.
any reference to anything which that ordinance teaches or represents.
On this principle, the rite might as well have been designated by any
junction of letters jumbled together at random, without being previously
a word in any language. In this sense it has no relation to any of the
seven other senses, more than if it had not a letter in common with
them. As far as this meaning is concerned, the rite might not only
have been performed in any mode, but it might have had any import
imaginable. It might have been a symbolical pollution, instead of a
symbolical purification. This meaning is self-evidently false.
This principle, however, is the only safe one on which to rest the
propriety of transference instead of translation. Undoubtedly, if the
word has no meaning in the original, but as the designation of an ordi-
nance, it should have no meaning in a translation but as the designation
of an ordinance. How could it be translated if it has no meaning ?
To give it a meaning significant of anything but of the rite itself, would
be to mislead the reader.
But how can Dr. H. agree both with Mr. Ewing and President
Beecher ? Mr. Ewing gives the word no meaning, but as the designa-
tion of an ordinance : President Beecher gives it the meaning of purify.
How can the same man agree with both?
It is a self-evident truth that any word in a language taken to desig-
nate a new rite, must be appropriated according to its meaning in the
language. If this word has previously seven other meanings, it must,
in reference to baptism, be appropriated in one of these senses. Can
any instance be pointed out in any language, in which a word is taken
from the language and appropriated to the designation of a rite, when
in that rite there is no reference to the meaning of the word in the
language ?
As an argument for transference instead of translation, Mr. Ewing
alleges : " From the various senses in which, from the foregoing exam-
ples, it appears that baptizo was used among Greek writers, it must be
evident that no proper English term could be found when applied to
this initiatory rite, to convey a corresponding signification." Here it is
supposed that this word in this application has sense enough, if our
language could enable us to express it by a single term. This eighth
sense is not only not without sense, but it actually has seven other
senses implied in its own sense. Yet the definition of the eighth mean-
ing in the classification denies it any sense, but as the name of a sym-
bolical rite.
The difficulty, or rather impossibility, of translation, it seems, arises
from the impossibility of finding an English term for this eighth mean-
ing, corresponding to the seven other meanings. Was ever absurdity
so absurd, as the supposition, that a symbolical application of a word
must embody all the meanings of the word in the language ? Is it not
enough that it corresponds to that meaning of the word on which it is'
founded? Should my opponents succeed in showing that the word in
question has several meanings, I would not demand that, in reference
to baptism, it must have a meaning corresponding to each of their
several meanings. I should esteem it quite sufficient, if it corresponded
REPLY TO DR. HENDERSON. 275
to that one of them on which they pretend to found it. Here, then, this
word, which, in reference to baptism, by definition has no meaning, but
as the designation of an ordinance, is made to embody seven other mean-
ings. This, surely, is an " admirable specimen of classification."
Here, then, are eight senses of a word, founded on examples, all of
which I have, with the utmost ease, reduced to one signification. If
simplicity is an essential in science, it is obvious that my view is the
most scientific.
But Mr. Ewing should have added another class, in reference to the
baptism of the Spirit. This, surely, according to his views, better de-
serves a distinct place in the classification than some of the meanings
which he has dignified with that distinction. He founds this use of the
word on its fourth meaning. This is self-evidently false. He might,
without absurdity, allege that the meaning of the word in the Christian
rite is founded on its fourth meaning in common use. But the word in
the phrase, baptism of the Spirit, is incontrovertibly founded on the rite
of baptism, whatever may be the nature of that rite, and whatever may
be the import of its name. Baptism of the Spirit is a figurative ex-
pression, founded on the rite of baptism.
The figurative baptism, in reference to sufferings, should also, accord-
ing to Mr. Ewing's classification, ha«ve formed a distinct meaning. This
is as different from any of his other classes as his fourth class is different
from his fifth. Mr. Ewing grounds this use of the word on the fifth
meaning. Beyond question, when the sufferings of Christ are called his
baptism, the reference is directly to the rite of baptism, and not to the
mode either of his sufferings or of the rite.
Dr. H. must add an eleventh meaning to his classification. To purify
is very different from wash. But Mr. Ewing's doctrine will not admit
this meaning. This gives a distinct meaning to the word, which may
and must be translated. Mr. Ewing's philology utterly forbids and defies
translation. Can Dr. H. consistently agree with both?
But we have not yet reached the bottom of the mine of absurdity.
Dr. H. declares that it is demonstratively certain that the word in ques-
tion signifies to purify, while with the same breath he pronounces Mr.
Ewing's classification admirable, though it does not in all its classes
contain the meaning which is demonstratively certain. An admirable
classification truly, which does not in all its range include the true
meaning of the word in the ordinance of baptism !
Why does Dr. H. attempt to couple Mr. Ewing and President Beecher
in the same yoke? Would he have his readers believe that the theory
of Mr. Beecher is just the completion of the system of his predecessors,
or that it is consistent with it ? If President Beecher is right, Mr. Ewing
and all the late defenders of sprinkling or pouring are wrong ; and have
spent their energies in establishing error. There is no more propriety
in Dr. Henderson's identifying himself with President Beecher, than
there would be in my identifying myself with the President. Indeed,
the difference between Mr. Beecher and me is not so great as is the dif-
ference between him and them. Yet, because his doctrine is contrived
to allow every one to follow his own accustomed practice, they are willing
276 REPLY TO DR. HENDERSON.
to have it thought that he and they are perfectly agreed. If Dr. H.
now says that President Beecher is right, he must say that Mr. Ewing
and all the other defenders of sprinkling and pouring are wrong. Presi-
dent Beecher will not oblige them to alter their practice ; but he will
oblige them to change their doctrine. Why are the sprinklers so
willing to submit to President Beecher? Because they have to change
only their view of the meaning of the word, and not to change their
old practice. Had President Beecher obliged them to change their
practice, he would have found them as restiff with him as they are
with me.
My last observation on this classification is, that while the seven pre-
ceeding meanings all imply that, whatever may be the mode, the baptized
object is covered with the water as far as he is said to be baptized, the
eighth meaning employs but a few drops.
Here, then, are the sources of the error of my opponents. Is it pos-
sible that, grounding on such principles, they can come at truth ?
Section III. — Dr. Henderson's observation with reference to the
Syriac translation abounds with false principles and contradictions. I
shall select a specimen. For a full and most satisfactory answer to Dr.
Henderson with respect to ancient and many modern translations, I
refer to Mr. Gotch's examination.
1. He is as sure as if he had been with the witch of Endor, that our
Lord, in giving the commission, used a certain word which signifies to
stand; yet he is equally sure that President Beecher has given the pro-
per translation of the Greek word, which is to purify. Can there be a
fairer specimen of contradiction ? To purify is not to stand. If, then,
baptizo corresponds to the word which our Lord is supposed to have
used, it must signify to stand. This is a new theory.
2. As President Beecher has attempted to prove that the word baptizo
signifies to purify, with respect to this ordinance ; and as Dr. H. has
declared that this proof is demonstration, either our Lord Jesus Christ
was wrong in the word he employed in verbally giving this commission,
and was justly corrected by the Greek Scriptures, or the Greek Scrip-
tures gave a false representation of his commission. It is impossible for
any man to agree with both. If Christ, when giving the commission to
the apostles, used a Syriac word which signifies to stand, and if the
Scriptures give a Greek word which signifies to purify, the Scriptures,
so far from being inspired, are not a faithful uninspired translation.
Cease, Dr. H, to pervert the word of God : cease to defend your error
at so fearful an expense : cease to massacre the witnesses of God's truth :
cease to contradict yourself.
3. It is self-evidently false that the word in reference to this rite sig-
nifies to stand up, or to stand erect. This would correspond to the rite
in no view ever given of it, or which can be conceived. This is evi-
dently a desperate resource, which can serve the purpose only of evasion,
but which is equally opposed to both the contending parties.
4. Dr. H. says, that " it obviously suggests the idea of a person's
taking his station at or in the water, in order to have the act of baptism
REPLY TO DR. HENDERSON. 277
performed upon him." Here is another absurdity. If the word suggests
the idea of a person's taking his station for baptism, how does it signify
the act of baptism? According to this, we should have another word to
designate the act of baptism, as this designates merely a previous process.
Is standing up, in order to be baptized, baptism? Should a person stand
up in order to be baptized, as long as Lot's wife stood on the plain of
Sodom, this would not baptize him in any mode. According to this
lucid philology, the word does not at all signify the act of baptizing.
For that we must have another word. Does the command enjoining
soldiers to stand erect call on them to present and fire 1
5. Yet while Dr. H. makes the word designate a process previous to
baptism, he makes it again designate the rite itself. Is it not the Syriac
term which designates baptism ? This is a contradiction.
6. If the word employed by our Lord signifies to stand erect, implying
that the persons to be baptized took their station in an erect posture, ai
or near the water, does Dr. H. make his recruits of a few days old take
their station at or in the water, and stand erect in order to receive
baptism? Surely that which is essential to the meaning of the word is
essential to the ordinance.
7. If the word signifies to stand, to stand up, to stand erect, how
does Dr. H. makes it designate the purpose of the standing, and the place
of standing ? According to his own showing, these circumstances are
not in the word.
8. It is assumed that the meaning of the word baptizo, in reference to
this ordinance, is purify ; it is assumed also that the version referred to
is a translation of baptizo ; must not the Syriac word, then, signify to
purify, if it is a just translation ? How can it be a translation of the
Greek word, if it signifies to stand? Can anything be more absurd than
to suppose that the word which is the translation of purify, signifies not
to purify, but to stand erect 1
9. If the Syriac is a just translation with respect to this word, and if
the Syriac word signifies to stand up, then baptizo must signify, not to
purify, as Dr. Henderson and President Beecher contend, but to stand
up, or to stand erect. Pouring and sprinkling, and popping and dipping,
are all impostors. Standing up is the true heir to the inheritance.
10. Dr. H. assumes that our Lord gave the commission in Aramaic.
I have no objection to this as a possible fact. But it is not in evidence
from Scripture, and can be no foundation for a Scripture doctrine. We
have nothing to do with the language in which our Lord spoke : we
must be guided by the language in which his words and actions are
reported. To go to the language which he is supposed so have spoken,
is to go beyond first principles. We have no more concern with the
language which Christ spoke on earth, than we have with the language
which he now speaks in heaven. Our opponents overlook first principles
which are as clear as the light, and they bring in first principles which
have neither proof nor self-evidence. Here, in order to have a good
foundation, Dr. H. attempts to dig to the antipodes.
11. Dr. H. assumes, that if our Lord spoke in Aramaic he must have
used the word found in the Peshito Syriac version. If that word signi-
278 REPLY TO DR. HENDERSON.
fies to stand, there is the most perfect certainty that he did not use it: if
he used that word, there is the utmost certainty that in that use it does
not signify to st an d; because in that sense it would not correspond to the
word in the New Testament. What reason can we have for saying that
Christ must have used either one word or another, but as such word cor-
responds to baptizo ? Is it by necromancy that we are to find out what
word our Lord used on this occasion ? Do we know anything of the
nature or mode of this ordinance, but from the New Testament I Dr. H.
here absurdly pretends to find out the meaning of the word used for the
ordinance in the Scriptures, by the word which Christ is supposed to
have used in the language in which he uttered the commission, though
the word which Christ used in conveying the commission cannot be even
guessed at, but from the word used in the New Testament. This is like
another of the author's exploits, in which he pretends to found the
doctrine of inspiration, not on the declaration of Scripture, but on the
authority of the Son of God, as if the knowledge of the authority of
the Son of God did not itself rest on the authenticity of the Scriptures !
12. Dr. Henderson's advice to the Bible Society is inconsistent with
his confidence of conviction with respect to the meaning of the word.
He believes that it is demonstratively proved that it signifies to purify.
How, then, can he advise to transfer the word, or translate it by any
other word ? It is an axiom, as clear as any in mathematics, that every
thing in the original, as far as it can be ascertained, ought to be commu-
nicated in a translation of Scripture. There can be no reason for
withholding anything with respect to one ordinance or doctrine, that will
not equally apply to every other. If it is lawful to withhold the know-
ledge conveyed in one word, it is lawful to withhold the whole Scriptures.
If it is lawful to mistranslate one word, it is equally lawful to mistrans-
late the whole. If any translator believes that the word signifies to
sprinkle, or to pour, he is bound so to translate it. If any one thinks
that it signifies to purify, as an honest man he must translate accordingly.
But to advise concealment, or misrepresentation, of what it is believed
God has revealed, is most monstrous. If any translator, after all his
study, research, and prayer, is unable to determine the meaning of this
word, I am not the person to blame him for transferring it. What can
he do but transfer ? Every one must act according to his own light.
No man ought to be advised to conceal or misrepresent. God is the
Almighty, and needs not the assistance of our dishonesty. Jacob would
have obtained the blessing without his knavery.
13. Dr. H. scruples to assist a translation which renders the word
immerse, while he thinks the Baptists very unreasonable because they
will not co-operate with the Bible Society; though they not only decline
assisting Baptist translations, but also assist translations which the
Baptists disapprove.
14. Dr, H. assumes that the opinion of Mr. Greenfield, that the mode
of the ordinance is a matter of indifference, invalidates his testimony
about the meaning of the word, and of the words employed by ancient
translations to represent it. Could any well-regulated mind urge such
an argument ? What connexion has an opinion regarding the importance
REPLY TO DR. HENDERSON. 279
of the mode of an ordinance, with the testimony respecting the meaning
of the word which denotes it ? A sound mind is better than the gift of
tongues.
15. Dr. H. assumes that the objection to the word baptize, on the
part of the Baptists, is because it is an exotic ; and gravely proceeds to
show the same thing of the term immerse. Was there ever such trifling?
The objection to the word baptize is not because it is an exotic, but
because, as an English word, it is merely the designation of an ordinance,
without expressing the mode, which is expressed by the word in the
original. Baptize has become an English word, but as an English
word it has not the sense of the Greek word which it is employed to
represent.
Many people were astonished at the verdict of the House of Lords
with respect to Lord Cardigan : there is not a man in the empire who
can have any doubt with respect to the matter of fact. How, then, could
all the noble lords lay their hands upon their breasts and pronounce the
words, " Not guilty, upon mine honour !" There is no reason for
astonishment. According to the first principles on which their lordships
were bound to decide, their verdict could not have been different. The
name of the person challenged must be accurately specified in the in-
dictment ; and it was not so specified. Just so on this subject. As long
as our opponents lay down arbitrary and absurd principles of interpreta-
tion, it is useless to present evidence from examples. Were they ever
so numerous and clear, the disputant, grounding on his first principles,
will lay his hand on his breast and say : " Not proved, upon mine
honour." Unless on one side or other our first principles are false, how
is it possible that the meaning of this word cannot be settled ? It cannot
be from any difficulty in the word itself. No word in the language can
afford better sources for definite decision. Was ever any word in any
language so fully discussed ? Is doubt to be eternal ? I arraign our
opponents as establishing innumerable false principles of interpretation,
and as trampling on many of the clearest laws of language. Here, then,
let me be met. We need not send the jury into the box, till we have
laid down the principles on which they are to decide on the proof that
shall come before them on the evidence of examples. I call on the un-
learned of both sides to judge for themselves. I engage to make every
thing plain to every man of good sense. My rules of criticism may be
understood and estimated by men utterly unacquainted with the Greek
language. They equally apply to all languages, and to all words of all
languages. Let me entreat the studious and prayerful attention of every
Christian to this controversy. To suppose that it cannot be decided
is to insult the word of God. Were it the least of Christ's command-
ments, it ought not to be disregarded. But the subject is important in
itself: it is important as it regards the peace and prosperity of the
churches, the translation and circulation of the Scriptures, and the in-
terpretation of the Word of God on every subject. It is a fearful thing
to teach the children of God how to evade his commandments, by
adopting laws of interpretation calculated to extinguish every doctrine
in Scripture.
CHAPTER VI.
EXAMINATION OF A SERIES OF PAPERS IN THE CONGREGATOINAL MAGA-
ZINE, ENTITLED, " A CRITICAL INQUIRY INTO THE MODE OF CHRISTIAN
BAPTISM."
Section I. — A writer in the Congregational Magazine undertakes to
prove that baptizo, in reference to the ordinance of Christ, signifies to
purify. Though in answer to President Beecher I have fully refuted
that theory, I shall examine, at some length, what is advanced in this
series of papers. The writer assumes that we rest on the ancient use of
the word, without reference to later usage. Nothing can be more un-
founded. We appeal to the practice of the language universally, and
admit every sense of a word that usage has established. Our authorities
embrace the whole period, from the earliest usage to the times of the
apostles.
" If to dip, a dipper, a dipping," says the writer, " be the signification
of these words, (baptizo, &c.) then, unquestionably, baptism was per-
formed in this manner." This, certainly, is a valid inference. Were all
his reasoning equally strong, it would be impregnable. The amount of
it is, if the words have such a meaning, then unquestionably they have
such a meaning. I am not disposed to question this. Had he said, as the
primary meaning of the words is confessedly such, if a secondary cannot
be proved from the usage of the language, then unquestionably baptism
was performed by immersion, he would have said something equally
unquestionable, and something to the purpose. This is exactly the way
in which I proceed, and in which every one in search of truth must
proceed, in ascertaining the meaning of words from written documents.
He adds, " If these words have some other signification, then it re-
mains to be considered, whether, from any other source, we can learn
how this ordinance was originally administered." This I most fully
admit. If, in a single instance in all the history of the Greek language, a
secondary meaning can be proved, I admit that such secondary meaning
may lawfully compete with the primary, in every case, and that other
proof is necessary to decide the preference. Surely this is an admission
full enough. But had the word twenty meanings, its meaning in every
occurrence must be capable of being ascertained, otherwise there is
blame in the composition. " It has been thought enough," says the
280
REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. 281
writer, " by the advocates of dipping, to show that there is nothing in
the Bible to make this sense of the disputed term impossible." This is
not a fair representation. We do not allege that it is the true meaning,
simply because it is not in any case impossible, but on the ground that no
secondary meaning is in proof. A meaning may be not only not impos-
sible from connexion, but may be entirely suitable to connexion, yet may
not be the true meaning, — nay, may be the very opposite of the true
meaning. In the expression, " He rode a black horse," white is as suit-
able to the connexion as black. Suitableness to connexion is a condition of
the true meaning of a word, but it is not a criterion. We are, therefore,
infinitely far from saying what this writer represents us as saying. What
we say is, that when the meaning of a word is ascertained by an
EXAMINATION OF ITS OCCURRENCES IN THE LANGUAGE ; AND WHEN NO
SECONDARY MEANING IS IN PROOF FROM OTHER PLACES, THEN IN A DIS-
PUTED PLACE NOTHING BUT AN IMPOSSIBILITY CAN FORBID US TO APPLY
THE PRIMARY MEANING, OR WARRANT US TO ASSIGN A SECONDARY. In
like manner as to a third meaning: — where two meanings are in proof, a
third should not be alleged in any case till it is proved. The competition
must be restrained to the two meanings in proof. If a third meaning is
proved by examples, let it come into competition, but let a fourth be for-
bidden, except on the same condition. This canon is a first truth, and no
candid man of common sense will ever refuse to sustain it. It applies not
merely to this word, but to words without exception. For what can forbid
the meaning of a word which is in proof, when no other meaning is in
proof, and when the passage where it occurs can admit it ? If the word
is not proved in other places to have a secondary sense, and if in the sup-
posed case it is capable of its proved meaning, where is the difficulty ?
How can such a passage be proof that the word has a secondary sense,
when in such passage it is capable of the primary? If the word in the
passage can have such a meaning, can it be said that the passage proves
that the word cannot have such a meaning? This is to say that the
same thing is both possible and impossible. But if a secondary meaning
is in proof, then the possibility of the application of the primary, is no
evidence that it is the true meaning. The claims of the competitors
must be judged on other grounds. So far, then, are we from saying that
mere possibility warrants primary meaning in all cases.
" And their opponents," adds the writer, " have been satisfied with
proving that, in heathen literature, another sense is possible." Now this
shows that our opponents do not understand our critical doctrine on this
point. They think they stand on the same ground with us, when they
allege that, in many passages, the connexion will bear another meaning
as possible. But this we admit without the smallest injury to our canon.
Indeed, it is the very thing which I have often proved. The connexion
may admit many meanings which are false ; sometimes as willingly as it
admits the true meaning. I do not ground the meaning of the word on
the fact that connexion does not make it impossible ; but on the evidence
of passages which demand this sense. When I have done this, I repel
objections by alleging possibility. I deny in this instance a secondary
meaning, not because connexion always makes a secondary meaning
36
282 REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE.
impossible; but because no secondary meaning has ever been proved in
any instance. My possibility answers objections : the possibility of my
opponents, even according to this writer, is the ground of proof Now
mere possibility is no proof; but it is sufficient to repel objection.
" The principle which has been assumed by those who assert that
baptism means dipping," observes the writer, " which has been some-
times, though not always asserted, but which has received little, if any
support from fact or reason, is this, that the signification of the root of
a word or its signification in classic Greek, is most probably its significa-
tion in the New Testament ; most probably to such a degree, that no
turning from the radical or classic meaning should be allowed, except
when these are plainly impossible." This also is a misrepresentation.
Instead of confining words in the New Testament to the signification of
their roots, we teach, that not only in the New Testament, but in the
language of all writers and speakers, many words depart widely from
their roots. I have shown this in instances of the most extravagant
departure. No writer has ever admitted or proved this to a greater
extent than I have done ; and I do not confine to classic use in the
interpretation of the Scriptures. I admit all use until the very moment
in which the document is written. Instead of teaching that no turning
from radical meaning should be allowed, except where it is impossible,
I teach that, in a multitude of words, there is a departure from radical
meaning, without any impossibility from connexion. Where two or
more meanings are in proof, which of them is the true meaning in any
passage, is to be determined by other evidence. And with respect to
classic Greek, if any other Greek has established a secondary meaning,
I will admit such meaning as a competition. Can truth require more?
" Accordingly," says the writer, " in discussing the signification of
baptizo, &c, they first look to the root, and to classic usage." This is
our avowed practice. Certainly, with respect to all words, it is the
natural process. It is the process followed by all philologists. In
tracing the meaning of a word, and its change of signification if it has
any, the natural course surely is, to begin with its origin as far as known,
observe its first appearance in the language, and follow it through every
successive stage in its history. But we have no objection to any process
whatever. Let our opponents commence at any stage they choose ; we
engage to show that in no stage of its existence is there proof that it
signifies to purify, or anything but to immerse.
But the author adds: "And then having fixed in their judgment what
is the meaning in heathen writers, they take that meaning to the Bible,
and because it is not absolutely impossible that the word should have the
same meaning there, they declare that it certainly has that meaning, and
none beside." In the only sense that this can serve the writer, it is not
true. It implies that we carry the classical meaning of the word to the
Bible, without regard to a different meaning existing in what they call
Hebraistic Greek. Now this is not fact. We appeal to all Greek ;
and if there is any Hebraistic Greek concerned in the question, we have
it, because we have all that the language affords, both from our own
industry and the diligence of our opponents. We have not overlooked
REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. 283
a single instance. We appeal to all Greek ; and if in any Greek we
should find another meaning, we would admit it to competition, though
the preference might be justly given to the primary. In this case, how-
ever, there is no variation among the whole range of Greek writers.
Indeed, the question of Hebraistic Greek has no concern in settling the
meaning of any word. To the interpreter it is no matter what is the
principle which has operated in the change of the meaning of any word.
The fact of a change is what he is to ascertain. If this is proved, he is
not bound to show the principle, or account philosophically for the
change. This is not the business of the interpreter ; but of the philo-
logist. It is a matter of great importance to philology, and to the philo-
sophy of the human mind ; but interpretation and controversy have no
concern with it. If my opponents could prove the change which they
allege in the meaning of this word, they need not deign to account for
it. Their business is done, when the fact of such change is proved.
The difference between the duty of a philologist and that of an interpreter,
is like that between the business of a coroner and that of a lawyer, with
respect to the sudden death of a person who was the life of a lease. The
certainty of the death is all that concerns the latter ; the former must
investigate the causes of his death. When the interpreter proves a
change in the meaning of a word, he grounds on it, without regard to
its cause ; the philologist endeavours to ascertain the cause. Should I
ever find time to finish my work on the canons of Biblical interpretation,
Hebraism is one of the things that will demand consideration. But in as-
certaining the meaning of any word, opinion of the influence and extent
of this principle has no concern. If a word is proved by use to have
changed its meaning, the change must be admitted, whatever may have
been its cause : if this is not proved, no principle can prove its existence.
" It might be supposed," says the writer, " from the way in which some
persons reason concerning words, that they were almost unalterable in
their signification ; that they were, perhaps, the most immutable things
met with in this changing world." Who are the persons to whom this
applies? There is no one in existence to whom it can less apply than
to me. Have I not, in that which I have written on this controversy,
most fully taught that words change their meaning? Have I not given
examples showing that words sometimes change their meaning to an ex-
travagant degree? But I have also taught that there are some words
which have not changed their meaning ; and that the word baptizo is one
of them. In his second paper this writer endeavours to prove that the
word in dispute usually signifies in classic Greek not simply to dip, but
to continue for some time under water. The word is not more applicable
to water than it is to wine, or oil, or any other liquid. It is not confined
even to liquids, but applies to every thing that may be penetrated. And
the continuation of the state after immersion is not at all contained in
the word, but is learned from the connexion or nature of the thing.
Nothing can exceed the absurdity of supposing that the word should
designate both the immersion and the state after immersion. Even duno,
to sink, does not imply continued submersion. It may be applied to a
diver who immediately emerges, as well as to a millstone that lies for
284 REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE.
ever at the bottom. The very words kill, die, &c, do not designate a
continuation of the state induced. They are as applicable, when there
is an immediate re-animation, as if there were no resurrection. None
of the examples alleged by him prove his opinion. Cork is said to be
unbaptizable, not merely because it will not lie at bottom when forced
down, but because it will not by its own specific gravity, dip, or sink.
It will no more dip of itself, than it will of itself lie at bottom. If as
supporting a net it is sometimes covered with water, it does not dip more
than it sinks : and if it may be dipped, it may also be sunk. If it may
be forcibly covered with water at top, so may it be forcibly kept for
ever at bottom. If when restraint is removed it will rise from the bot-
tom, surely when restraint is removed it will remain at top. It is said
to be unbaptizable because it will not dip or sink by its own weight.
" It is dipped," says the writer, " but it does not sink." But it does
not dip more than it does not sink ; and if it is dipped, it may be sunk.
If external force dips it, external force may keep it in continued sub-
mersion.
The example from Aristotle, alleged by Dr. Gale, contradicts the
doctrine of this writer. The passage asserts that the coast is not bap-
tized at ebb, though completely overflowed at full tide. Does not this
imply that the coast was baptized twice every day? The word, then,
cannot import a continued submersion.
The passage from Strabo is not fairly reported : " Things which do
not float in other waters, are not baptized in a lake near Agrigentum :
they are like wood, which may be dipped, but will not sink." Would
not any one suppose from this representation, that Strabo had said of
the things referred to, that they might be dipped, while the verb in ques-
tion could not be applied to them ? But Strabo says nothing like this.
Strabo does not say that " they are like wood which may be dipped, but
will not sink." He says, " they float like wood." If timber may be
dipped, so timber may be kept at the bottom. Strabo does not say that
timber will not continue at the bottom, although it will sink. He says
it will not sink. There is no expression of continuation of submersion
in any of these passages.
With respect to the baptism of Alexander's soldiers, can there be a
better test of the import of the expression, than the fact that it can be
literally expressed in our own language? " They marched the whole
day in water, immersed up to the middle." The continuation of this
immersion is not contained in the word, but in the phrase, the whole day.
The word would have been equally applicable, had it been only a single
plunge.
" The same writer states," says the author, " that if a man went into
lake Sirbon, owing to the density of the water, he would not be baptized.
He might dip himself, or be dipped into it, but he would not sink, even
if unable to swim." Now this is a strange way of reporting evidence.
I appeal to every English reader, if he does not gather from this, that
the document makes a difference between dip and sink. It neither
expresses nor implies any such thing. Dr. Gale's translation of the
passage is : " The bitumen floats at top, because of the nature of the
REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. 285
waters, which admits no diving ; for if a man goes into it he cannot sink,
or be dipped, but is forcibly kept up." As far as this controversy is
concerned, this translation is good enough, though it is not accurate. It
is not " admits no diving," but " requires no swimming ;" that is, the effort
of swimming is not necessary to keep above water. It is not, he cannot
sink, but he does not of necessity sink, that is, his own weight does not
force him down. The word respects the dipping or sinking, and has no
relation to the continuation of submersion. The same writer speaks of
a river whose waters are so dense, that if a dart is thrown in from above,
it is with difficulty the dart dips. Here the penetration of the water is
designated by the verb in question. Nothing can be more decisive. But
sound philology would never expect that the same word should express
both an immersion and a continuation in that state.
"Lucian," says the writer, " introduces Timon as saying, that ' If a
winter storm were to carry any one away, and he should stretch forth
his hands, imploring help, he would push down the head of such a per-
son, baptizing him, that he might be unable to rise again.' This person
was not only to be dipped, but to be kept under water that he might be
drowned."
No doubt the intention of Timon's baptism was destruction ; but does
this imply, that the intention of every baptism is destruction? Can
anything be more ridiculous than to suppose, that the same word should
denote both immersion and the intention of the immersion? Does not
Lucian expressly declare the purpose of this immersion? Besides, does
not Timon say, that he would baptize the person on his head, that is,
that he would immerse him with his head doionwards , that he might be
unable to rise ? Does not this imply, that rising after the immersion was
possible? And, after all Timon's efforts, the baptized person might still
have risen, as far as either this word or the circumstances were con-
cerned. This is the most astonishing sort of criticism that I ever met
with. The writer might as well extract the whole Athanasian creed
from this verb, as extract from it that it designates only a continued im-
mersion. It has nothing to do with continuation, or with brevity. Let
us try this criticism on our own language. In translating Timon's ex-
pression we should say, " I would plunge him on his head, that he might
not be able to rise again." " Here," says the critic, " the word plunge
signifies not merely to dip under water, but to dip with the intention of
drowning. Timon did not dip the man in order to raise him immedi-
ately, but in order to drown him. This, then, is an immersion of de-
struction— a continued immersion. The word plunge, then, cannot be
applied to cases in which there is an immediate immersion of the plunged
object." Would not the most illiterate Englishman laugh at the sapient
critic? Yet this is the very criticism employed on the word in the
Greek language.
Besides, intention and continuation are two very different things.
There may be intention without continuation, and continuation without
intention. This writer makes them identical. But this word implies
neither continuation nor intention. There cannot be a more appropriate
example of the meaning of baptize, with reference to the ordinance of
286 REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE.
baptism, than this. Timon's baptism for destruction is as good a speci-
men of the meaning of the word, as is that of John the Baptist, whose
baptism was an emblem of salvation. No critic under heaven would
think of extracting the intention or continuation of an immersion from
the word that designates immersion.
On the example, "A pilot does not know but that he may save in his
ship one whom it were better that he had baptized ;" the writer remarks,
" the meaning of the word here is obviously opposed to saving; it must,
therefore, be not dipping but drowning."
Even here the word does not signify droten, but has its usual mean-
ing. That drowning is the consequence of the immersion is known
from the circumstances in which it takes place. Let us try the criticism
on the English : " The captain cast one of the sailors overboard." To
cast overboard, or to cast into the sea, does not signify to drown ; but if
it takes place in the midst of the sea, drowning is the known consequence.
And if we are not informed of his escape, this is the conclusion. Yet a
man might be cast overboard, and escape. To cast overboard, then, is
not the same as drown. So with respect to the word in question. If it
is said, " Better the captain had plunged the fellow into the sea," drown-
ing, we know, would have been the result, but it is not designated by
plunge. I have no objection that the word should be here in a free
translation rendered droion ; and our friend Dr. Gale does so translate
it : but the word has here its peculiar modal meaning, and nothing more.
This is a point which on all subjects I have been continually pressing,
but which I cannot get my opponents to understand. Words may, in
certain circumstances, be commutable, when they are not at all identical
in meaning.
"Most of the land animals, being carried away by the stream, per-
ished, being baptized." On this the author remarks, " They would not
have been hurt by dipping; they continued under water, and were
drowned." The Greek word baptizo would not hurt them more than
the harmless English word dip, were there an immediate emersion ;
and dip, if not followed by an emersion, will be followed by death as
its consequence, as well as baptizo : and the latter may be followed by
emersion as well as the former. The continuation under water is not
here expressed by the verb in question. The animals swam for a time,
as they were carried down the stream ; but at last they sunk, or were
completely immersed. The consequence of this was, they perished. Our
word immerse does not express continuation ; yet we could say, " Being
immersed, they perished." Indeed, the perishing, so far from being con-
tained in this word, is expressly mentioned by another word — " being
immersed, they perished."
"As you would not wish, sailing in a large ship, adorned and abound-
ing with gold, to be baptized, that is, to be drowned." With respect to
this example, I say also, that the word in question does not signify to
drown, though in this situation this is the consequence. Could we not
use our own word immerse exactly in the same manner, in the 3ame cir-
cumstances ?
'* Shall I not laugh at the man who baptized his ship by overlading
REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. 287
it, and then complains of the sea for ingulfing it with its cargo?"
Can we not exactly express the same thing in English ? " Shall I not
laugh at the man who immerses his ship by overlading it?" The con-
tinuation of the immersion is not in this word, whether it is baptizo
or immerse. The author remarks on this example, " He not only dips
his ship, he sinks it." He appears to think that sink necessarily implies
continuation : but it does no such thing. A thing may be made to sink,
and be immediately brought up. This is the case in the ordinance of
baptism, and in a thousand other things. A thing may even sink by
its own weight, and be immediately brought up. This was the case with
respect to the axe of the prophets, which sank in Jordan. Divers sink,
and rise again. There is no word that has the signification which this
critic confers on baptizo.
The same will apply to the ship which carried Jonah. If it was
about to be baptized, to be immersed, or to sink, it was just about to be
lost ; yet baptism, and sinking, and immersion, do not express continua-
tion at the bottom of the sea. This is the consequence, if nothing to
the contrary is expressed.
With respect to the death of Aristobulus, the writer says, " He was
not merely dipped, but he was kept under water till drowned." Were
this exactly the case, it is futile. It was not a mere dipping of him
that killed him, but the keeping him under water till he died. But it is
not said that the assassins dipped him, and then kept him under water
till he died. They dipped him again and again, till he was suffocated.
This example is the most complete proof, that the word in question does
not of itself designate continuation. The first baptism did not destroy
him ; they repeated the operation till he was suffocated. This shows
that a man may be baptized without being destroyed. The writer
observes, that " This baptism is mentioned as obviously an adequate
cause of death." This, truly, is a very sage observation. If a man is
immersed again and again, till he is suffocated, does it require any other
evidence to prove that he is dead ? Suffocation is a very sufficient cause
of death.
" The historian says, that the ship in which he sailed was baptized in
the midst of the Adriatic. It was not only dipped, but it went to the
bottom and remained there." Could we not literally translate this into
English by our own honest word immersion? "The ship was immersed
in the midst of the Adriatic ?" The word has here its usual meaning ;
the continuation at the bottom is all inference from situation and cir-
cumstances ; and will be the result equally from the English word as
from the Greek. Indeed, the expression is perfectly compatible with the
supposition, that after the sinking of the ship it was by miracle raised
immediately. The baptism and the state that follows have no necessary
connexion.
When Josephus says of some persons, that they baptized the city, this
writer asserts, that the expression " means not that they subjected it to any
transient affliction, but that they brought it to complete and final ruin."
In direct opposition to this, I maintain that no such thing is expressed.
The immediate ruin of the affairs of the city is the only thing that is
288 REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE.
asserted. Whether they continued in that state, or were retrieved, is not
expressed by this figure, though it may be known from other evidence.
As far as this figure is concerned, the affairs of the city might have
immediately been retrieved. Should the city have been afterwards more
prosperous than it was in the time of Solomon, this figure has nothing
to object. Can there be anything more absurd than to argue that be-
cause a ruined city never recovered, the word which designates its ruin,
must be a word that includes continuation of ruin ?
M There is one passage," (in Josephus,) says the writer, " referring to
purification from defilement by a dead body, where the word accords
with the New Testament usage." The passage he translates thus :
" Having immersed a little of the ashes and a hyssop branch at a foun-
tain, and having also baptized some of these ashes at the fountain, they
sprinkled therewith ' both on the third and on the seventh day, those
who had been defiled by a corpse.' The baptizing is here mentioned
as something distinct from the dipping, subsequent to it, and applying
only to the ashes. Both the ashes and the hyssop branch were dipped,
the former only were baptized, i. e., purified."
On this I remark : 1. The writer translates enientes by the word im-
mersed, and says that the immersion is stated as different from the bap-
tism. This is not correct. Enientes is not immersed. This is not a modal
word at all. It is a generic term, and signifies to put in, without any
respect to manner. Ashes, when put loosely into water, are not said to
be immersed, as they do not immediately sink. A powder is usually
said to be cast into water, to be throien into icater, or to be put into icater
— not to be immersed in icater. Accordingly, the Greek term exactly
corresponds to this idea. It cannot be translated by the word immersed
or dipped. Is it not most perverse to refuse to give its modal meaning
to a word which is not, in all the Greek language, proved to have any
other than a modal meaning, and to bestow this modal meaning on a
word which never has a modal meaning? What are the boundaries of
the extravagance employed to set aside this ordinance of God ! How
easily are our opponents satisfied that a word signifies to immerse, if that
word has nothing to do with baptism !
2. The punctuation of the words of Josephus is evidently wrong, and
has been made without attention to the rite as described by Moses.
The hyssop was not cast into the water with the ashes ; but the ashes
being cast into the water, the hyssop branch was dipped, that by means
of it the unclean person might be sprinkled. The comma, then, ought
to be before hyssop. " Having put a little ashes into the water, and
having dipped a branch of hyssop," &c. This is definitely described
by Numbers xix. " And a clean man shall take hyssop, and dip it into
the water," &c.
3. The comparison of Josephus with the Septuagint determines the
meaning of the word baptizo. It is used here by Josephus to express
the same thing, which the Septuagint expresses by bapto, which without
controversy is dip. It dips the branch of hyssop. Here a Hebraistic
Greek writer, even in reference to a sacred rite of purification, uses the
word for immersion.
REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. 289
4. The ashes were not to be purified in the water : the ashes mixed
with the water, were the means of purification. The water could not
have purified without the ashes.
5. It is not " at the fountain," but " into the fountain." The ashes
were put into the fountain — not put into something else at the fountain :
the branch of hyssop was dipped into the fountain, not dipped into some-
thing else at the fountain.
6. Josephus here, in what way soever his words may be translated,
makes an addition to the account of Moses. He casts some of the ashes
into the fountain to make the water of purification ; and some of the
ashes he dips in such a way that they may be taken out, and sprinkled
on the person to be purified. However he is to be understood, his words
are to be translated, " and having immersed a branch of hyssop and
also a little of the same ashes into," &c. As the ashes that were to be
immersed were to be sprinkled on the person to the purified, they must
have been put into the water in a bag as in cookery, or in such a way
that they could be taken out. This is evidently the meaning of Josephus,
though it is not enjoined in the law of Moses.
7. The translation of the words of Josephus by this writer, implies
this equally with mine. His rendering is, " having also baptized some
of those ashes at the fountain, they sprinkled therewith." That is, they
sprinkled with those ashes. The ashes, then, according to this, were
sprinkled on the unclean, as well as the water of purification by the
branch of hyssop.
8. There is also a difference between Moses and Josephus in the pre-
paration of the water of purification. Moses commands the water to be
put on the ashes : Josephus puts the ashes on the water. The reason of
this difference is obviously that Moses prepares the water in a vessel,
while Josephus employs the whole fountain, in which process the water
could not be put on the ashes.
" It should be remarked," says the writer, " that not only does it
appear in these passages that the object baptized continued under water,
but it is also clear that the writers direct attention to this point. This
continuance is therefore not only a part of the object referred to, but it
is a part of the signification of the term."
1. My philosophy draws a directly contrary conclusion from these
premises. If the writers referred to draw attention to the point that the
objects immersed continued under water, the continuation under water is
no part of the meaning of the word. In all these passages the continuation
under water is gathered from the circumstances, or is expressly related.
2. The writer has previously admitted that " an examination of the
passages which have been adduced will show that it very rarely has this
sense," that is, the sense of dipping without continuation. Now if it
never so rarely has this signification, it is enough for me. The nature
and intention of the ordinance will show that the persons to be immersed
are not to be kept continually under water.
3. If in any instances, however rare, the word applies to cases in
which there is no continuation, then continuation cannot be a part of
the meaning of the word.
290 REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE.
4. If there are some instances in which the verb is applied to cases
in which there was destruction, and other instances in which there was
not destruction, then destruction is no part of the meaning of the word.
5. The very example brought by this writer from Josephus to prove
purify, proves immersion to be the meaning of the word. What the
Septuagint designates by baptizo, Josephus designates by bapto ; and it
is not pretended that bapto signifies to purify.
6. That bapto should signify to dip, and baptizo to drown, would be
an odd effect of termination.
7. The case of Aristobulus proves the same thing. It was not one bap-
tism, but a succession of baptisms, that destroyed him. The assassins
continued to immerse him till he was suffocated.
8. This doctrine is inconsistent with the hypothesis on which the
meaning of purify is assigned to this word. Is not the ground on which
purification is alleged to be the meaning of this word in Hebraistic
Greek, the fact that dip was its common meaning ; and that from its
being so frequently applied to purification, it came at last to signify
purification without respect to mode 1 Here, however, this writer, in
direct contradiction to this, assures us that the classical meaning of the
word is not dip but drown, or, continue in a state of submersion. Now
if this is true, how will the word come to signify purification ? Upon
what principle could a word whose common meaning is to drown, come
to signify purify 1 Pour or sprinkle would be equally suitable to the
hypothesis, as the groundwork of the process from mode to purification
without respect to mode ; but neither of these is the ground on which
the purifiers build their superstructure. They do not contend either for
sprinkle or pour as the primary signification of the word in question.
Could they hope to make good this as the primary meaning, we should
never have heard of purification as a secondary, from Hebraistic usage.
Purification has been contrived as a refuge, when they have been hunted
from pour and sprinkle.
On the supposition that the common meaning of the word was drown,
and that it was employed in reference to this ordinance, in the sense of
purify, let us try the operation on the English language. Suppose that
the ceremony of sprinkling with holy water had lately for the first time
been introduced into England ; is it likely, is it possible, that it would
be designated by the word drown ? When a few drops of water should
be sprinkled on a crowd, would the people be said to be drowned, mean-
ing that they were purified ? And this is the very thing that our oppo-
nents do in Greek. They take a Greek word which in its classical
meaning they say signifies to drown, or continue in a state of submer-
sion for a length of time, and they employ it to designate purification.
Section II. — The Author's General Observations. — " Our first
general observation is," says he, " that the context of the word in the
New Testament is never that which is used, both in the classics and in
the Scriptures, to connect verbs signifying to dip, with that into which
any object is dipped ; but on the contrary, the context is always of a
kind which proves that, literally, it means some effect produced by water.
REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. 291
Where bapto and baptizo signify to dip, the context is eis, with that into
which the object is dipped ; as we should say, He dipped into water,
&c. But this construction does not once occur in the use of baptizo in
the Septuagint and the New Testament."
1. This observation is rash and unfounded. En is found frequently
both in the classics and in the Septuagint, construed with bapto, signi-
fying to dip. " Dipping but in cold water." Hip. 193. " Thou hast
plunged me in filth." Job. ix. 31.
2. Eis and en are frequently commutative in such cases ; and en is
often used where eis tnight be thought more appropriate. Homer says
of Iris, " She leaped in the dark sea." We ourselves use both idioms.
" He leaped in the sea, or into the sea." Cowper says, " Eurypylus is
shot into the thigh" — in is more usual. Again, " into his throat" — in
might be substituted. Again, " Either to plunge some Grecian in the
shades." This is exactly a case in point. To plunge in or to plunge
into are good syntax both in Greek and in English.
3. Yet when eis and en are commutative, they are not identical in
meaning. Each has its peculiar meaning, corresponding to our prepo-
sition in and into — the one implying motion, the other rest. The writer
grants in the above extract more than I will receive from him. En
never has the signification of into, though it may occasionally be em-
ployed where into is more usual, and more appropriate. When con-
strued with bapto or baptizo, it is not so definite as eis. It designates
merely the place or substance in which the action of the verb is per-
formed. It will explain as well in English as in Greek. When I say
that such a man " was immersed in the river Thames," all I assert is,
that the action of the verb was performed in the river. It is the verb
immersed, and the circumstances, that must prove the mode. This will
appear clear to any one who takes an example in which the verb is
changed. Such a man " was killed in the river." On the other hand,
eis would express that the action of the verb was into the water. Yet I
would rely on en with the utmost confidence ; because no reason can ever
be given why baptism should be performed in a river, if there is not im-
mersion. When we say that such a man " leaped in the sea," is it not as
obvious that he leaped into the sea, as if the word into had been used ?
Do not we ourselves say " immersed in the water, or into the water ?"
Indeed immersed in is more common than immersed into. It is always
more appropriate when the place or the thing in contradistinction to
something else in which the immersion is performed, is designed. This
perfectly accounts for the phraseology of Scripture in respect to this
ordinance. The verb construes equally with them both : in some cases
the design of the speaker will render one of them more eligible than the
other ; while in other cases either of them will answer.
4. In the preceding extract the writer asserts that " the context is
always of a kind which proves that literally it means some effect pro-
duced by water." So far from proving that this is always the case, the
context never, in a single instance, proves that the word means some
effect produced by water. Even if en should be translated with, " baptized
with water," or " sprinkled with water," does not express the effect, but
292 REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE.
the substance with which the baptism was performed, whatever may be
its mode.
5. That en construed with baptizo signifies in, we have the most de-
cisive evidence in the fact that the Christian writers who used the Greek
language understood it in this sense. Theodoret, speaking of the bap-
tism of Theodosius, represents him as saying, that he had delayed his
baptism, as being desirous of receiving it in the river Jordan. The Latin
Fathers also understood the preposition in this sense, with respect to
baptism, and translated it accordingly. Tertullian writes, " dipped in
the Lord." Jerome also, in exposition of the language of the com-
mission, says, " intingunt aqua" they dip them in water. Indeed this is
the very syntax which Greek, Latin, and English would use when place
or substance is meant to be expressed.
With respect to Luke iii. 16 ; Acts i. 5 ; xi. 16, I admit that as far as
syntax is concerned, the verb might be rantizo, to sprinkle, and the pre-
position understood might be translated with. But even were it trans-
lated with, the preposition expresses the baptizing substance — not the
mode of baptism. This would be quite consistent with immersion, or
any other mode. But this solution will not apply to en Iordane. This
must be in Jordan — in the river Jordan — not with Jordan and the river
Jordan.
The writer tells us, that the common use of the dative case requires
that water is referred to as means. No such thing is required. As far
as the dative case is concerned, it may or it may not be means, which is
referred to. That the preposition en is here understood, is clear from
the use of it in the contrasted part of the sentence — " en, in the Holy
Ghost." Now surely no man would say that en may not be translated
in. "It must," he says, "be translated by or with." Why so? The
other is the more common meaning, and it is so translated here by the
best judges.
6. That en construed with the verb in question signifies in, is evident
from Mark i. 4. John was baptizing in the wilderness — not ivith the
ivildemess. If this preposition refers to the place of baptism in reference
to a wilderness, why may it not refer to the place in reference to a river ?
7. Let the writer say what verb he would use, and what preposition
he would construe with it, if he meant in the most definite manner to
express that a person was immersed in the river Jordan.
8. The writer says here, that the preposition " expresses the means
employed for some effect." But has he not said, in the very same con-
nexion, that "it means some effect produced by water?" Is an effect
the same thing with the means employed to produce it ?
" That en," says the writer, " sometimes has the signification of into,
is acknowledged." This is an acknowledgment which I do not demand
— which I will not accept. It never has the signification of into, though
it may be frequently used where eis is more common.
" The phrase en hudati," says the writer, " is so opposed to en pneu-
mati in many passages, that it is clear they are correspondent phrases,
and that the prepositions indicate in both the same relation." Nothing
can be more evident.
REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. 293
" As the latter cannot be rendered into the Spirit," he continues,
" for this is unintelligible, it must be rendered with the Spirit." Why
should it be rendered either into, or loith the Spirit ? It can, and must
be rendered in the Spirit. To baptize in the Spirit is as intelligible as
to baptize with the Spirit. The expression is figurative, and must be
expounded by the ordinance of baptism, whatever may be its mode.
From the admitted correspondence of the two clauses of the sentence
above referred to, I draw a directly contrary conclusion from that of
this writer. As the preposition must be translated by the same word
in both places, and as en hudati is in water ; so en pneumati must be in
the Spirit : for the figurative expression must conform to the literal, and
not the literal to the figurative.
" The word baptizo must, therefore," says the writer, " denote some
effect produced by water." Archbishop Whately, is this logic ? May not
the end of using the action denoted by a verb be to produce a certain
effect, though the verb itself does not denote the effect? Even were
the phrase translated sprinkle with water, it would not denote the effect
of the sprinkling. Sprinkling may have different effects, but not one of
them is denoted by the word itself.
In a note the author gives a number of examples of the verbs in ques-
tion, with their syntax, implying effect by means of what is associated
with the verb. The first is, " Stained with blood :" but the verb here
is bapto as signifying to dye, and in that sense it has the effect in itself.
In that sense it has nothing to do with this controversy.
His translation of the next example, " the soul is weighed down by
excessive labours," is quite unwarrantable. It is not weighed down, but
immersed. And where excessive labour is the baptizer, the effect is
obvious. We do not deny that the syntax in question will express
means, and that the means employed may be calculated or intended to
produce an effect.
" They wash in warm water." It ought to be, " they immerse in
warm water." Washing is the consequence of the immersion.
" Thoroughly imbued with integrity," ought to be, " immersed in
justice to the bottom." The verb is bapto, but every scholar will per-
ceive that it cannot here, as the writer translates it, be taken in its
secondary sense, dye. Eis bathos, into the depth, or to the bottom, shows
that the verb is taken in its primary sense, and that the primary sense
is dip. Imbue to the bottom would be nonsense. This figurative expres-
sion must refer to immersion. When we speak of " going to the bottom
of a subject," or " into the depths of science," is there not a reference
to immersion ?
" I am of those who were overwhelmed by that mighty wave," ought
to be translated, "I myself am of those who were immersed tinder that
mighty wave." This figure is a most beautiful example to show the
nature of baptism. The wave was the baptizer, and under the wave
the persons were immersed.
" He who with difficulty has borne his present burden, would be
pressed down by a small addition." Not pressed down, but immersed.
The proper translation is, " would be immersed by a small addition."
294 REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE.
The small addition to his burden would sink him. Do we not say the
same thing ourselves? This most definitely implies that baptism is
immersion.
" His body was made wet by the dew of heaven," ought to be, " his
body was immersed by the dew." Why this is called immersion, no
person who has a soul to feel will need information.
He concludes the note with the following observation : — " Where verbs
denoting to dip, are construed with en instead of eis, according to a well-
known Greek idiom, the sense is, to put into, and to leave in " mix-
ing myrrh and rosin together, and putting them in wine, dip a piece of
linen." " I send you forth to be as sheep in the midst of wolves :" " he
put him into, and kept him in prison." Matt. xiv. 3. This philology I
utterly reprobate ; it is not founded either in philosophy or in fact.
1. Verbs of dipping, and verbs of motion in general, may, in certain
circumstances, be construed with en as well as with eis. But in no case
is one of these prepositions put for the other, or does it adopt its signifi-
cation. It is in virtue of its own signification that it fills the situation.
No such idiom is known in Greek more than in English; it is false on
first principles. Nothing can be more absurd than to suppose that a
word will occasionally give up its own meaning and adopt the meaning
of another word ; and fact does not demand the supposition of such
absurdity. The phraseology that, gives rise to it is explicable on philo-
sophical principles, without departing from the meaning of the word, or
assigning it the meaning of another. The usual doctrine of gramma-
rians on this point is unsound and pernicious to philology as well as
theology. Examples of the same thing occur as frequently in English
as in Greek. I have shown several instances in which in and into are
commutative, without being identical in meaning ; and examples occur
every day.
2. In the instances referred to in the above extract, it is not true that
the sense of en is into. The mixture is said to be put in the wine, and
our language will bear this phraseology as well as the Greek. The thing
exactly expressed is, that the mixture after being so put, is now in the
wine. But to be now in the wine, implies that there has been a pre-
vious mixture into the wine. Accordingly, either in or into will in such
cases serve the purpose, while neither here nor anywhere else are they
synonymous. Put it in the wine, or into the wine — your choice.
3. Dieis, en oino, literally putting it through in the wine ; that is, the
mixture was to be not only put in the wine, but through it. There
must not only be a mixture of the myrrh and rosin, but this mixture
must again be mixed with wine, that the linen may be dipped in it.
The writer is here treating of verbs of dipping. Does he consider this
a verb of dipping? It is not a modal word at all, though in its generic
meaning it includes mode. The preposition en is here connected with
putting through, not with dipping. The regimen, as far as concerns the
dipping substance, is to be supplied by ellipsis. The linen is to be
dipped in the whole compound of myrrh, rosin, and wine.
4. Nor does en, in such instances, express that the thing dipped is left
in that state. It might be brought out the next moment after immersion,
REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. 295
for anything that either the verb or the preposition has to say to the
contrary. The reader may see instances of this in the examples brought
forward in this work. According to the philology of this writer, if a
man put his foot into mud, he may take it out again ; but if, unfor-
tunately, he puts it in mud, it must remain in it.
5. Nay more ; it not only takes the meaning of into while it retains
its own, but it does more in this situation than both could do — it leaves
the thing dipped in a state of imprisonment.
6. Even in the very example quoted, the thing immersed is not left
in that state. The myrrh, and the rosin, and the wine, are indeed left
in a state of mixture ; but it is the linen that is dipped in the compound,
and instead of being left there, it is immediately taken out to be em-
ployed. This criticism is guilty of felo de se. But I care not that the
example implied that the thing immersed was to continue in for ever ;
the leaving it in that situation is not implied by either the verb or ihe
preposition.
7. With respect to the two last examples I cannot see for what pur-
pose the writer has quoted them. His critical dogma here brought
forward respects verbs of dipping. Is send forth, Matt. x. 16, a verb of
dipping? Is put or placed, Matt. xiv. 3, a verb of dipping?
8. He is here treating of the preposition en when put instead of eis.
But in translating Matt. x. 16, he does not suppose that en is instead
of eis. He gives it its own peculiar meaning, in the midst, not into the
midst.
9. His critical dogma refers to cases in which en is construed with
verbs of dipping. But he does not, in this example, construe en even
with send, but with the elliptical verb to be — to be in the midst, not to
send into the midst.
10. In the phraseology, Matt. xiv. 3, put him in prison, the words and
kept him there, are neither included in the meaning of the preposition,
nor of the verb. The same expression would have been used had John
the Baptist been delivered from prison the next moment after imprison-
ment. It will apply to an imprisonment for half an hour, as well as
imprisonment for life. We ourselves use the same phraseology ; we say
that a prisoner is put in prison, or into prison, without any design to
refer to the duration of imprisonment. But men have great facilities for
profound criticism in dead languages. May we not say, " the constable
put him in prison, but the magistrates immediately released him?"
When in is used, motion to a place is not expressed, but position, when
the action of the verb is finished. That motion into a place must
precede rest in a place, is necessary; but this, in the preposition in,
is understood, not expressed. This always expresses rest in the place
mentioned.
Thus in every example alleged in this note, I have shown that the
philology of the writer is unsound. Let it be observed, also, what a
multitude of meanings he is obliged to give to bapto and baptizo, in these
examples. First, to stain : bapto does indeed signify to dye, but in this
sense it has nothing to do with this controversy. Persons are not dyed
in purification. In the second example he makes baptizo signify to
296 REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE.
weigh down. Is this to translate on principle of any kind ? The word
never has this meaning : the word is here used figuratively, and must in
the translation be guided by the literal meaning, which never is what
this writer has given. He might as well have rendered the passage by
the expression, the mind is weakened by excessive labour. On such a
principle as this, we might give this word, or any other word, five hun-
dred meanings. His third meaning is wash : but immerse is the trans-
lation— washing is inferred as a consequence of dipping. The word has
perfectly the same meaning here that it has when applied to dipping in
mud. The difference of effect is known from the circumstances. Among
washer-women is it not often said, in English, " Give that a dip," mean-
ing wash it 1 The fourth meaning is imbue. This meaning is palpably
false ; because the words into the depth, construed with the verb, shows
most manifestly that bapto is here taken in its primary signification.
In the fifth example, he gives overwhelm as the meaning. The word is
used figuratively ; but the literal meaning is never to overwhelm, though
it will admit this in a free translation. In the sixth example, he gives
pressed down as the signification. This is entirely different from the
second meaning. To press down is quite a different thing from to weigh
down. Can any fancy be more wild than to render this word in this
manner ? This verb is a servant of all work. It is as expert in pressing
cheese, and compressing hay for exportation, as in purifying. On these
principles, what is it that it may not be made to signify? In the
seventh example he makes bapto signify to wet. This is not a meaning
of the word, though it may often be substituted for it. To dip anything
in a liquid will be to wet it ; still to dip and to wet are words of quite a
different meaning — the one only in certain circumstances is the conse-
quence of the other. Now there is no more reason to make bapto
signify to wet, than there is to make dip signify to wet. The eighth
example gives the verb its own meaning, but entirely mistakes the
syntax. Now what a mass of philological confusion is this ! Would
not definite interpretation be impossible, if all words were to be trans-
lated on these random principles? Is it not self-evidently clear, that if
I can succeed in giving the same meaning to baptizo in every occurrence
of it in the language, my doctrine is preferable to that which gives it a
useless multitude of meanings? If I can explain on philosophical prin-
ciples, in perfect accordance with my view, every instance in which the
word is used, is it not self-evidently clear that there is no ground to
allege a secondary meaning? On the other hand, let the reader try if
he can find any philosophy in the assignment of the different meanings
allotted to this word by our opponents. They give meaning to the word
in each passage — not from the authority of first principles and definitely
ascertained usage, but from the supposed exigencies of the place from
antecedent probability. They reason as if every passage must inde-
pendently ascertain its own meaning; whereas in multitudes of instances,
every word may be, as far as connexion is concerned, capable of having
a word of opposite meaning substituted for it, without detection by
context. In such cases, established usage can alone decide. They make
the word express, in its own meaning, peculiarities contained or implied
REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. 297
only in the context. In this way they can assign to any word as many
meanings as there are variations in the connexion. If language could
be legitimately interpreted in this way, nothing could ever be proved
or disproved ; no tongue could ever be learned. I resist such licentious-
ness in assigning meaning to words, not merely as it affects the subject
of baptism, but as it affects every thing revealed in Scripture : I resist
it, not merely as it affects the Scriptures, but as it affects every written
document that guides the determination of man : I resist it, as it makes
all language, either written or spoken, incapable of certain and definite
interpretation.
But why does the writer demand eis and refuse en in construction
with bapto and baptizo, in the signification of dipping, when both the
classics and Hebraistic Greek afford examples of both ? Was not
Namaan immersed in Jordan ? Was not Aristobulus immersed in the
pond? Did not John immerse in Jordan, and in water? And the
dative without the preposition, we have in Alexander Aphroditus,
Problem, lib. 1 : " A power immersed in the depth, or most inward parts,
of the body;" with a multitude of others that might be given.
Thus I have proved that the preposition en construed with baptizo, is
evidence in our favour ; and without the occurrence of eis in a single
instance, would serve our purpose. But the assertion that eis is not
found in the syntax of this word in the Septuagint and in the New
Testament, is not well founded. It is found Mark i. 9, " Jesus was
baptized of John into Jordan. The writer admits this in a note ; but
the note is a contradiction of the text. A general assertion in the text
may be limited, or modified by a note ; but a note should not admit what
the text universally denies. This is not explanation or modification, but
contradiction, which nothing can justify. The text says, " But the
construction does not once occur in the use of baptizo in the Septuagint
and the New Testament." The note not only contradicts the text, but
takes away the ground of the argument which the text employs. The
argument is grounded on the supposed universality of a fact, which the
note admits not to be universal. If such syntax is admitted in a single
instance, no argument can be founded on its universal absence. It can-
not be alleged, that the want of such a syntax evidences a change of
meaning, when such a syntax is not wanting. A difference of meaning
cannot be alleged from a difference of syntax, if there is not universally
such a difference of syntax. The writer, indeed, in his note, endeavours
to give another meaning to the preposition, Mark i. 5, but this does not
alter the case, even were the preposition capable of the alleged meaning.
The complaint is, that such cannot be the meaning, because there is not
such syntax. If the syntax exists at all, the complaint is removed.
If in such a sense the word must have such a syntax, why will you give
this necessary syntax another sense, just for the purpose of evading that
sense which requires this syntax? But were it a fact, that there is not
one instance of such syntax, the fact would not bear the conclusion. If,
in common use, any one of two prepositions may equally be used, with
a verb in a certain sense, any one of them may be constantly employed
with the verb in that sense. With respect to some words there might
38
298 REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE.
be but a single example of its syntax in the New Testament. Its syntax,
then, must be determined by common usage.
Let us attend to the writer's attempt to set aside the testimony of
Mark i. 5. " But," says he, " as this is the only instance in which eis
is used, and as it is here connected with the name of a place, it is much
more probable that it has the common signification of at."
1. Here a false first principle is assumed, namely, that one instance
may be explained in a meaning, which it could not have in a number
of instances. Can anything be more absurd?
2. If it is construed here with the name of a place, that place is a
river in which the immersion took place.
3. If in common syntax such a phrase has such a meaning, why
should it not have this meaning in the syntax of Scripture?
4. If to produce such a meaning, such a syntax is necessary in com-
mon language, why should it be thought probable that where such
syntax occurs in Scripture, it has not the same meaning? If the syntax
is necessary to the meaning, why is the meaning denied it where the
syntax is found?
5. If in common use the same verb is sometimes coupled with en and
sometimes with eis, why may it not in scriptural use be capable, in the
same sense, of the same association?
6. This instance does not give, according to our interpretation, a new
meaning to the preposition, nor a new meaning to the verb associated
with it, nor a new syntax to the regimen. What reasonable pretence,
then, can there be for change ?
7. The meaning assigned by the writer is not a common meaning of
eis, as he asserts. Even by those grammarians who give at as one of
the meanings of eis, it is not supposed to be a common meaning.
8. This extravagance is still more aggravated, when it is considered,
that the prepositions para and epi appropriately designate at ; and that
no other prepositions but en and eis could be employed in expressing an
immersion in or into water. If these are the only prepositions that
could be used to express that this ordinance was performed by immer-
sion in or into water, if there are appropriate prepositions to express at,
if water or a river is the regimen, what can the meaning be but the
common meaning of the prepositions in and into ? Can any reason be
assigned for giving another meaning to the prepositions, but an obstinate
reluctance to admit the consequence?
9. The thing is still worse when it is considered that this extrava-
gance is employed not only to avoid the common meaning of the verb,
but to give it a meaning that in the Greek language is not in evidence
from a single example.
10. But this syntax is not confined to one instance in the New Testa-
ment ; it is found in many instances. Eis is connected with baptizo in
the commission. Now, though water is not the regimen, yet it is the
meaning of the preposition in reference to the performance of the rite,
that must regulate its meaning in all cases.
11. The early Christians who wrote in the Greek language connect
eis in this sense with baptizo. Eusebius construes baptizentcs with eis
REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. 299
onoma — into the name. And Eusebius understood the verb as denoting
immersion.
12. The early Latin writers understood the preposition in this sense.
Tertullian has not only tinctus in Domino — dipped in the Lord; but tin-
gentes eos in nomen — dipped them into the name. Now Tertullian knew
something of Greek syntax. After this shall we listen to the modern
criticism that declares that such syntax is intolerable! As to the
soundness, then, of this syntax, there can be no higher authority. Do
our opponents pretend to make a discovery in the meaning of Greek
verbs and Greek syntax, unknown to the very persons who wrote and
spoke Greek ?
In fact, the early Christian writers, both Greek and Latin, used both
eis and en in speaking of this ordinance, just as the Scriptures do, and
just as we ourselves use the corresponding prepositions. We say im-
merse in or into, while we do not confound the prepositions.
But I go much farther. I not only deny that eis here signifies at, — I
maintain that it never has this signification. This is much more than I
am bound to prove. I might admit with many that this preposition occa-
sionally has the signification of at, while I could successfully exclude it
from this place. Grammarians who teach the absurd doctrine, that a
word may occasionally desert its own meaning, and assume that of
another, confine this privilege to cases in which the word is totally
inexplicable in its meaning. The doctrine, then, in their hands is
usually harmless ; but in the hands of controversialists it does mira-
culous exploits. They call in its aid on every occasion, when the
necessities of their case demand it ; and what the grammarians have
provided to explain dark passages, they use to make clear passages
dark. But I will take away the whole foundation from under this
figment. I deny that ever eis signifies at. So far from being a common
meaning, as this writer represents it, it is not a meaning at all. Let us,
then, examine the examples which the writer alleges to prove this
meaning. Luke ix. 61 : " Those at my house." The proper transla-
tion, however, is neither " those at my house," nor, with our version,
" those which are at home at my house," but " those who belong to my
house." Eis often signifies toith respect to, or in reference to. The
preposition here has no respect to place at all. The whole relations
are here included, in whatever houses they might dwell. At all events,
it was not at but in the house they lived. At can have no pretensions
here.
The second example is Luke xxi. 37. " He lodged at the hill." At
the hill ? Was it not within the verge of what is called the mount of
Olives? At, then, has no business here. But the preposition has here
its own peculiar meaning, and implies motion as well as in other places.
The writer has been looking into Matthiae ; why has he not attended to
him on this point? He explains this syntax not only as implying
motion in the preposition, but as being communicated by the preposition
to verbs which do not in their own nature import motion. He illus-
trates by many examples. His doctrine is, " Various verbs which of
themselves do not imply motion, receive this sense by the construction
300 REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE.
with eis." I agree with Matthiae as to the fact : I differ from him
as to its philosophy. Without doubt, in the cases referred to, there is
motion in some verb expressed or understood, according with the prepo-
sition that indicates motion. But it is a question whether the motion
in the verb, is motion communicated to the verb, which in itself has no
motion, or belongs to a verb understood. My doctrine is, that the
motion is implied in a verb which is understood, and is not properly
communicated to a verb that has no motion in itself. It is absurd to
suppose, that the same verb can designate both rest and motion. It is
impossible both to stand and move at the same time. What I say is,
WHEN eis IS CONSTRUED WITH A VERB IN WHICH THERE IS NO MOTION,
THERE IS ALWAYS A VERB OF MOTION UNDERSTOOD, AND WHICH IS NOT
EXPRESSED BECAUSE IT IS NECESSARILY SUGGESTED.
But whatever is the philosophy of this fact, the fact itself is unques-
tionable. In all such cases eis has motion. It is neither at nor in, but
into. Homer represents Achilles as selling Priam's sons into Samos;
" Agreeing," says Matthias, with the English, " to sell into a place."
" The Midianites sold Joseph into Egypt." Here the preposition has its
proper sense, though there is no motion in the verb expressly joined
with it. This phraseology is exemplified by Xenophon. Cyrus com-
manded an officer to " stand into the front." Now there must here be
motion before standing.
We ourselves exemplify this every day. A soldier not in straight
line is commanded to stand into his rank. A ship is said to stand into
land. When Cowper says, " Stand forth, O guest," both motion and rest
are expressed.
The writer, however, might have seen in Matthiae many instances in
which apo, ek, and eis, are translated by in.
Surely this might teach any one that in such cases the words do not
change their signification. Could the word out, for instance, assume
the meaning of in ? All such cases are explicable on the principle, that
the words retain their own meanings. This critical Mesmerism would
stupify an angel, were he to subject himself to its influence.
With respect to the example in question, " he lodged into the mount,"
the solution is, " he went into the mount to lodge ;" or in whatever other
way it may be solved, the preposition eis implies that motion preceded
the rest expressed in lodge.
The third example is, "Wash at the pool of Siloam ;" literally, "wash
into the pool." He was to go into the pool that he might wash. At has
no pretensions to demand entrance here, whatever in might allege for
itself. The blind man might as well have sent to the pool for water, to
wash at home, as to take the water out of the pool and wash.
The fourth example is, " She fell down at his feet," John xi. 32.
Literally, " She fell unto his feet." The preposition here expresses the
motion of the fall. In reference to place eis signifies unto as well as
into ; but motion in both. It respects the motion of the falling body, of
which his feet were the point of termination. At his feet is substantially
a very good translation, though at is not the meaning of the preposition.
The fifth example is, " to all who are at a distance." Literally, all
REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. 301
unto a distance, that is, all who are between Judea and the supposed
distance, meaning the most distant nations. The author changes the
version in order to bring in his favourite at. But when he has it, it does
him no service. Does at a distance signify near a distance ? Then they
who are in the distance, and beyond the distance, are excluded. The
promise is not to all who are contiguous to a distance, but to all in the
most distant places, — all between the speaker and the most distant parts
of the earth. Neither at nor in would exactly suit here.
The sixth example is Acts xviii. 21, " to keep the feast at Jerusalem."
Why change in of our translation into at ? Was it not in Jerusalem
that the feast was kept ? Did Paul intend to stop at the edge of the city?
Literally, it is neither in nor at. " It is necessary for me to keep the
feast into Jerusalem ;" that is, on the principle above explained, " it is
necessary for me to go into Jerusalem to keep the feast." The motion
necessary previously to the keeping of the feast, which is not expressed
by any verb, is implied in the motion of the preposition. This example
is quite similar to those cited by Matthiae.
The seventh example is, " to die at Jerusalem," Acts xxi. 13. Is it
not in Jerusalem that he is supposed to be willing to die? He did not
mean contiguous to the city. But in all such cases at is sufficiently exact
as a translation. However, it is neither at nor in, that is expressed — it
is into Jerusalem. The motion from Paul's present position to the sup-
posed place of his death, is not expressed by any verb, but is necessarily
implied. This circumstance is expressed by the preposition. The sen-
timent fully expressed is, " I am willing to go to Jerusalem to be bound
or to die."
The eighth example is Acts viii. 40, " Philip was found at Azotus."
This proceeds on the same principle. Philip was found after he had
gone into Azotus. The preposition does not here signify at, more than
in any other place, though it is sufficiently exact for a translation. It
expresses the motion of the verb that is understood.
The last example alleged by the writer is, " As thou hast borne wit-
ness concerning me at Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at
Rome," Acts xxiii. 11. Why does he change the translation from mto
at ? Was it not in Jerusalem and in Rome, that the testimony is sup-
posed to be delivered ? Whatever pretentions in might have here, at
can have none. The preposition, however, has here no regard to place,
but to the inhabitants of the places mentioned. To bear witness to or
into Jerusalem or Rome, is to bear witness to the people of those cities.
" With the verbs to say, to shoio," says Matthiae, " the reference or di-
rection to the persons to whom anything is said or shown, is sometimes
considered as analogous to an actual motion, and this analogy expressed
by eis." He illustrates by examples perfectly similar to the above, eis
pantas anthropous, before or to all men, &c.
Reader, have I not redeemed my pledge? Have I not demonstrated
that eis, in none of the passages alleged by the author, signifies at ?
Have I not shown the philosopical principle which accounts for the
peculiarity of the alleged use of eis? I have done more than my cause
required. I could have defended my point and admitted exceptions. I
302 REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE.
have proved that there are no exceptions. Mark i. 5, then, itself decides
the controversy. It is into Jordan ; and nothing but into Jordan can it
be. Were there no other objection to purify, this would unseat it. All
the electors claimed by it have been grossly misrepresented. They give
their vote freely to the other candidate.
The writer, it will be recollected, translated en in construction with
hudati, by with water. How does this consist with en Iordane, in Jor-
dan ? The last phrase is not sufficiently tractable to be translated with,
and the writer manages to convert it also, as well as eis, into at. And,
indeed, on similar principles, he might convert into at, all the prepo-
sitions in the Greek language, and of any other language. I appeal to
every candid scholar, — I appeal to every sensible man, is not this extra-
vagance? Shall these two prepositions wickedly and feloniously com-
bine to assume the meaning of other prepositions, in passages where
they are not only capable of having their own meaning, but where their
own meaning is the most natural and obvious, for the purpose of favour-
ing the pretensions of the usurper purification 1
Nothing can be more evident than that en hudati and en Iordane use
the preposition in the same sense. Each of the phrases refers to bap-
tism,— to the performance of baptism, while each of the words in regi-
men designates that in which the ordinance may be performed. Why
then, shall not the preposition have the same meaning in both places ?
Is there anything to prevent it? Does the verb refuse its sanction ? On
the contrary, the common meaning of the verb demands it. Does the
preposition refuse to be translated by the same word in two similar
places? This cannot be. Does the regimen refuse to dip the baptized
person? No, surely, the Jordan will not exclaim, "You cannot be
dipped in me." What then gainsays ? Nothing but the necessities of
this pretender purification.
This is so obvious to common sense that some of our opponents
translate en Iordane by toith Jordan, that is, with the water of Jordan.
Though this is barbarously figurative, it has more consistency. Here,
however, we have self-evidence that both of them are wrong. It is pal-
pably evident that if this writer did not think that the expression purify
with Jordan is absurd, he would not only have avoided giving a various
meaning to the preposition in the two cases which are so similar, but
would have availed himself of a meaning which he has judged so much
to his purpose. On the other hand, it is equally evident that if the per-
sons referred to did not consider that it is absolutely necessary to trans-
late the preposition by the same word in both places, they would not
have had recourse to the outlandish figure, baptize with Jordan. Each
of the parties, then, virtually gives its testimony against the other.
But the author, it seems, has proof for at as a meaning of era. " Mat-
thias observes," says he, " sometimes en is used with names of places,
when proximity only is implied." Well, granting this for a moment,
even in the writer's sense, does Matthiae teach that a controversialist
may avail himself of this resource as often as his exigencies require?
Grammarians who teach the above doctrine, confine the use of it to
cases that will not explain according to the ordinary meaning of
REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. 303
the words. I venture to assert that there is not an illustrious name
among grammarians that will sanction the use of their doctrine, that is
made of it by this writer. There is not in Europe, there never was
in existence a great scholar who would deny that Jesus Christ was im-
mersed in Jordan. Nothing but the confidence of ignorance could ever
venture such extravagance.
What are the instances that properly come under the sanction of this
doctrine of Matthiae ? t Are they not instances in which it is known that
the persons referred to, were not actually in the place named? What
countenance does this give to the extravagance of our author ? Is it
impossible to give the peculiar meaning to the preposition in this place?
Is it known that the baptism could not possibly be in the river ? Does
the common meaning of the verb require another meaning in the prepo-
sition? Does not the common meaning of the verb, the common
meaning of the preposition, the common meaning of the word in regimen,
all unite in demanding the same thing? Can the doctrine of Matthiae,
then, be a sanction to a process that expels the common meaning of the
verb, the common meaning of the preposition, and the common meaning
of the word associated with them in syntax? The examples, however,
referred to by Matthiae have no need of peculiar solution. It is the
territory of Lacedemon, and of Mantinea, to which Xenophon refers.
The example from Euripides employs en with references to Dirce, not as
a place, but as a person ; and has nothing to do with this subject.
Though in reference to place, this preposition always asserts intuspo-
sition, without in the smallest degree verging to the signification of at,
yet there are situations in which it is used when intusposition does not
actually exist. This, however, arises from the latitude given to its
regimen, not assumed by itself. This peculiarity I can account for on
the most philosophical principles. In writing to correspondents at a
distance, I always give my address, Tulbermore ; yet my house is more
than a mile out of the village. Exact information as to locality is not
designed or expected. Now this single fact will explain a great many
difficulties conjured up by controversialists to give latitude to explana-
tion. When I am spoken of as residing in such a place, in has its own
meaning most exactly. This I have no doubt may be exemplified in all
languages. But let a foreigner, a controversialist, who knows our
language from grammars and dictionaries, try his philology on such a
use of the English preposition in : " Here," he would say, with the
appearance of profound learning and critical acumen, " the preposition
in is used for at, signifying not within, but contiguous." On this founda-
tion he would rest mountains of false interpretation ; proving or dis-
proving anything, according to exigency.
My readers will now be prepared to give an answer to the following
assertion : " The statement that John baptized en the Jordan, and that
he baptized en Enon, shows that the former no more means within the
water of the river, than the latter within the walls of the town. The
meaning in both cases is merely that of nearness, and should be trans-
lated at the Jordan, at Enon. In the same manner en dexia, at the right
band."
304 REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE.
The ingenious writer is most happy in discovering secrets. I could
not pretend to take the same information out of this document. How
does he know that Enon was a town ? How does he know that it had
walls? If it had walls, what makes it necessary that the baptizing
should have been within the walls? Do not the suburbs without the
walls belong to a town? How does he know that the baptism was not
performed within the walls ? Could there not be in a town either much
water, or according to him, many fountains ? I might confine John to
the town, if my case required it, but my philology will give him a little
liberty. I care not whether Enon was a town or a district. On the
principle above explained, if it was a town, he might be said in English,
as well as in Greek, to be baptizing in it, when he was baptizing in the
district around it. The extension of meaning is in the regimen, not in
the preposition. Should a man from London be baptized by me, he
might say on his return, " I was baptized in Tulbermore ;" when he was
baptized at my house, or at the river Magola, half a mile from the
village. No Englishman would convert in here into at. The design
of such phraseology is not to give exact information as to the spot, but
to designate by a name that will be known to those to whom he speaks.
It is on this principle that we say, that such a man fell in Waterloo, &c.
In the phrase en dezia, the preposition in does not signify at, but has
its own meaning, — in the right-hand place. Indeed, instead of designat-
ing nearness, it may extend to any distance : it indicates merely, that
the situation of the object is in the space to the right. A bird appear-
ing at any distance to the right, is said to be en dezia. Where it is
applied to the closest juxtaposition, this is not the thing expressed.
Section III. — The Writer's Second General Observation. —
" In all cases where the word occurs in the New Testament," says the
writer, " it is applied to things connected with religion, generally to a
sacred rite significant of the purifying of the soul. Whatever may be
supposed to be the symbolical meaning of Christian baptism, that of the
Jews, to which reference is made in the epistle to the Hebrews, that of
the Pharisees, and that of John, were unquestioned rites of purification :
this was the meaning of them all, and their only meaning. Now the
meaning of a rite being of more importance than the mode, would be
more frequently referred to when the rite was mentioned."
There is here some truth, but false conclusions are drawn from it.
It is true that Christian immersion, and Jewish immersions, and, he
might have added, heathen religious immersions, are all emblematical
of purification, or supposed to be effective of it. But does this imply
that the word by which these purifications were designated must signify
purification ? This is grossly unfounded. Was not circumcision a rite
of purification? Did the name designate purification? How often
must I ask this question? Rites of purification may have names
that do not express purification. What does the writer mean by
the meaning of a rite being more frequently referred to than its mode,
when the rite is mentioned ? Can this say anything with respect to
its name ? And is not its mode an essential part of the meaning of
REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. 305
the rite? If a rite has a name from mode, can it be spoken of as to its
meaning, without indication of mode 1
" If, therefore," he continues, " a term at first descriptive of mode was
employed, it might be expected that it would, as an appellative for the
rite, sometimes lose its reference to the manner of action, and denote
merely the end."
1. This observation is founded on an admission that destroys the
writer's theory ; it admits that the disputed word was at first applied to
the ordinance in its modal meaning. But the author's theory is, that
the word had, in Hebriastic use, dropped that meaning, and assumed
that of purification.
2. This admits all we want. If baptizo was employed to designate
this ordinance at first, in its modal meaning, in that meaning it must be
for ever understood as to the ordinance.
3. That a modal word, given as the designation of an ordinance, will
apply to the rite with respect to every thing asserted of it, is the very
thing which we teach. That many things may be contained in its
nature, or import, which are not pointed out by the mode, we not only
admit, but contend. The ordinance of baptism is an emblem of cleans-
ing, but this emblem is in the water, not in the mode ; the mode is an
emblem of death, burial, and resurrection ; but whether the ordinance
is called immersion, or purification, or sprinkling, every thing spoken
about it may be referred to it under its peculiar name. This is manifestly
the case with respect to the word circumcision ; every thing said about it
in the Old and the New Testament, is applied to it under the name,
when there is no reference to cutting around.
4. But when this is the case, the word does not lose its reference to
manner of action, and does not " denote merely the end ;" it still retains
its modal meaning. Whatever may be said about circumcision, the
word still has the same signification.
5. Even when the meaning of a word is not understood, and it is
known only as the name of a rite, it is not correct to say that it there
denotes only the end. It does not denote the end at all ; it denotes the
rite itself, without reference either to mode or end. Thus, with respect
to the word baptism ; this is an English word, used merely as the name
of an ordinance, without reference either to end or mode.
6. To suppose that a word assigned as the name of a Divine ordinance,
from the mode of that ordinance, as emblematical of something in its
nature, would be changed in its meaning in Scripture, so as to lose its
reference to mode, denoting merely its end, is as absurd as it is impious.
After ages might change the meaning of the name of the ordinance ; but
such a change could not take place in its Scripture use.
7. The principle of appropriation is entirely different in its nature from
that which the writer supposes to operate in the meaning of this word.
When words are appropriated, they receive a peculiar application, but
do not lose their former meaning. It is on the ground of that meaning
that they are appropriated. Along with their own meaning, appropria-
tion supplies by ellipsis that which is necessarily understood. Had
sprinkling or pouring, for an emblematical purpose, been the mode of
39
306 REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE.
this ordinance, the name might have been sprinkling or perfusion ; and
these terms would have been appropriated so as to designate the
ordinance, without expressing either water or end. These would be
elliptically supplied; but the word would retain its modal meaning.
Things relative to its end, or relative to it in any view, may be referred
to it under its appropriate name ; but appropriation and change from
progressive use, are as different as any two principles that operate in
language.
8. The writer adds, " Words always change in their meaning with
modes of thought." This is an impious remark in regard to the mean-
ing of words in Scripture. Do the writers of the New Testament change
the meaning of this word, in reference to the same ordinance? Change
of modes of thought may operate in changing the meaning of words in
different ages ; but what relation has this to the use of words by the
inspired writers of one period ? Let it be observed that the question is
not about the change of the meaning of the word, after the times of the
apostles, but respects its meaning in the New Testament. Now, in
this point of view, can anything be more absurd than, for a purpose
of establishing a different meaning, to appeal to change in modes of
thought?
The writer alleges that the words rantismos, sprinkling, circumcision,
and anointing, underwent his process. It is not so. Sprinkling is
applied to the mind only figuratively ; circumcision is an appropriated
word ; and anointing is not a word of mode at all.
" It will scarcely be pretended," says the writer, " that the words, the
Messias and the Christ, retained, in the common usage of the Jews, any
reference to the pouring out of oil." That it had reference to pouring is
not pretended, for there is nothing of pouring in the word ; but that the
name had always a reference to anointing, is most confidently asserted.
That the word Christ does not suggest this to us is, because in its
original sense it is not an English word. The anointed would always
refer to anointing.
But the writer supposes, that according to our view, we must hold
that the exhortation to the Jews, to circumcise their hearts, directed them
to make circular incisions on that organ, or to do something similar to
that with their minds. It is painful to be obliged to spend time in
noticing such reasoning. Is not this a figurative expression ? To the
heart it does not apply literally ; but the word circumcision, whether
used literally or figuratively, has always the same meaning. " Crucified
with Christ," refers to crucifixion as really as when applied to the death
of Christ.
The Jewish rite had the name circumcision, not from process or change
of modes of thought, but by appropriation ; and every thing that was
ever included in it in the Scriptures, was in it from the first moment of
its appropriation. A better example could not be chosen to illustrate
our doctrine. This rite, according to the writer himself, received a
modal meaning : purification, he says, is its meaning ; yet the word first
and last has its modal meaning, and does not designate purification.
When it is said that the sword of the Lord is bathed in heaven, must
REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. 307
we either admit a change in the meaning of the word bathe, or hold that
there is in heaven a literal bathing of a sword ?
" The common tendency to use," says the writer, " in speaking of
sacred things, words significant of their design, rather than of their
mode, appears in our own language. The terms christen, commune,
ordain, consecrate, worship, are of such a nature that neither their
etymology, nor their ordinary signification, would give the least clue
to the manner in which the service thus named was performed." Now
what trifling is this ! What bearing can it have on the question at
issue ? Does this show, that in giving a name to an ordinance, with
a view to designate something in its meaning, a word of mode might
not be employed by its author? Does this show that Christ did not
appoint an ordinance emblematical in its mode ? Shall every man
be allowed to give names to his inventions, and shall not Christ be
allowed to give names to his ordinances, and give such modes to his
ordinances, as he pleases ? Must we confine him to the common ten-
dencies of human nature on such occasions? We do not argue from
antecedent probability, that a word of mode must be appropriated to
this ordinance : we do not argue that an ordinance must have a modal
meaning. We do not argue from the nature of things, that a word
indicative of end would have been improper. We argue that it is a
matter of fact that the icord employed is a word of mode ; that the syntax
of the word indicates the same thing ; and that the Scripture explanation of
the ordinance declares that its mode is emblematical. Does it follow, that
because certain words, neither in their etymology nor ordinary signifi-
cation, give any intimation with respect to the manner in which the
service thus named was performed, no indication of this can be given in
an ordinance of Christ? How could we expect indication of manner
in words which have nothing of manner in their literal meaning ?
Because christen gives no clue to its mode, since there is no mode in its
origin ; shall baptizo, which the author himself in this connexion admits
to be given to the ordinance at first in its modal sense, and changed
only by change in modes of thought, give no clue in its etymology or
ordinary signification, to the manner in which baptism is to be per-
formed ?
Some of the words referred to by the author, do indeed indicate the
tendency of the human mind both to change the ordinances of Christ,
and give them new names. Christen, to make a Christian, is a very
happy Puseyite name for a Puseyite rite. But we cannot forget that
Paul, when the Lord's Supper was abused, would not give it the Scripture
name.
But the fact of giving names to ordinances from modes or circum-
stances is not singular. Does the writer forget that breaking of bread is
among the inspired designations of the Lord's supper ? Is not laying
on of hands a similar expression? What about the name of the rite of
circumcision ?
" The designation of the Lord's supper is retained by us," says the
writer, " though that ordinance is no longer observed as a meal."
No longer observed as a meal ! ! ! Was it ever observed as a meal ?
308 REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE.
Was it a meal in its institution ? Was it not instituted immediately
after a meal ? That it never should be a meal, are we not taught in
the indignant question, " Have ye not houses to eat and to drink in ?"
It is called a supper from the time of its institution, and this circum-
stance is still imported in the name, as much as on the evening when it
was appointed. To retain it is not optional — to change it is an invasion
of the prerogative of the Son of God. The ordinance has in Scripture
other names ; but to give it the name of sacrament or eucharist is as
unwarrantable as to change the name assigned by her Majesty to the
Prince of Wales. The name of the ordinance has no respect to the time
at which we observe it, but to the time at which it was instituted.
There is neither a change in the term, nor in the meaning of the term.
Supper does not now mean breakfast or dinner : the tendency in the
human mind to change the meaning of words, can have no bearing on
this question. The inquiry is not whether certain words afterwards
changed their meaning ; but what is their meaning in the New Testa-
ment ? This must still be their meaning to us.
" And in many countries," says the writer, "where terms expressive
of dipping were first used for baptism, because it was thus administered,
the same terms continue to be used when the mode is no longer in
accordance with their primary signification."
Whatever may be the case with respect to the fact here referred to,
the principle I have not only always admitted, but from the beginning
I have pointed it out. But my opponents make a very unjustifiable use
of it. Because a word designating mode, appropriated to an ordinance
of Christ, will continue to be applied to the ordinance, even when the
mode is changed, does it follow that in the New Testament either the
mode or the meaning of its name will be changed? Changes of mode
and meaning of name in the usage of ages, have nothing to do with this
question. Had the mode been universally changed even in the second
century, it would not disturb my philology. Whatever change men may
make in this ordinance, its name, its mode, and its nature, must remain
the same in Scripture for ever. What has the meaning of the word in
Scripture, to do with after-changes in its meaning ? According to this
writer, every change in the meaning of Scripture words made by after
ages, must produce a similar change on the meaning of Scripture itself.
On this principle, language would be incapable of conveying a revelation.
But does not the writer see that this admits all we want? If many
countries employed to designate this ordinance, terms expressive of
dipping, because it was thus administered, and afterwards, changing the
mode, continued the name, does not this imply that dipping was their
original mode? Now this is all we want with respect to baptizo. If
immerse was its meaning in its first application to baptism, we care not
how many changes may be afterwards made in its meaning.
In his reasoning in this general observation, there are no less than
four theories involved in his arguments, as the ground of his conclusions.
1. The grand theory is, that this word, by frequency of application
to purification, came at last to designate purification without reference
to mode : that such was its use in the time of John the Baptist, and
REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. 309
consequently that it was so used in the New Testament. 2. A second
implied theory is, that at first a word of mode, it would lose that
meaning, adopting that of end. 3. That from the tendency of the
human mind to give names from end rather than mode, the word when
first assigned to this ordinance, must have been a word designating
end, not mode. 4. That it was dipping at first in mode, and dipping in
name ; but change of mode made a change in the meaning of the name.
Besides, the author asserts that certain countries gave the ordinance a
dipping name, from its dipping mode. Does not this contradict his
theory from the tendencies of human nature to give names from end
rather than from mode ? Can anything more clearly indicate a desperate
cause, than that men of ingenuity, employing the most extensive re-
search, are not able to write a page in defence, without plunging into
confusion and contradiction? Ah, my fellow Christians! cease to tor-
ture the word of God. You have taken in hand what an angel could
not perform.
Section IV. — Author's Third General Observation. — The third
general observation of the writer is : " In many passages the word is
applied to the minds of men ; their spirits are said to be baptized. That
when thus used it is employed properly, and not figuratively, is pro-
bable, from the frequency of its occurrence, and from the simple, un-
poetic character of the style."
1. And does the writer seriously assert that frequency of the occur-
rence of a word, in application to mind, makes it probable that the word
is used literally, and not figuratively? Is this one of the characteristics
that distinguish between figured and unfigured diction ? Has any
rhetorician ever alleged this as a criterion ? Could such an observation
suggest itself to a philologist ?
2. How could it escape the writer, that this frequency does not
respect the mind only in one view of it, but includes infinite variety ?
It includes every affection of the mind in excess. A proper term desig-
nating one affection of the mind, cannot designate another. A word
used figuratively, may apply to all in which likeness can be found.
3. Our term immerse may be used figuratively as frequently, and with
the same variety of application. What should we think of a foreign
critic, who, on this ground, should allege, that in all such occurrences
the word immerse is used, not figuratively, but literally, and without any
allusion to literal immersion ?
4. Are not pour and sprinkle capable of the like figurative application ?
Pouring is used figuratively in Scripture much more frequently than
immersion. It is applied both with respect to Divine blessings and
judgments. 5. The simple, unpoctic character of the style ! Does not
the writer know that the diction of the Lord Jesus abounds in figures?
The strongest figures found in language are found in him. Mr. Fuller,
we are told, after examining an ingot of gold in the Bank of England,
said to his friend, "How much better to have this in the hand than in the
heart!" Must we say, in order to make the diction of Mr. Fuller simple
and unpoetic, that the word heart is to be understood literally, and that
310 REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE.
the observation respected the danger of having the ingot literally in the
heart ? Would any child expound on such a principle ? In that view
Mr. Fuller might as well have referred to the liver or to the kidneys,
and to a leaden bullet. 6. As the writer, with frequency of occurrence
with regard to mind, joins the simplicity and unpoetic character of the
style, he must, by frequency, mean frequency not as to general use, but
in the New Testament. I do not recollect any figurative application of
the word in the New Testament, except that with respect to the baptism
of the Spirit, and that with respect to the sufferings of our Lord. Both
refer to body as well as mind. The word is indeed very frequently, in
good use, applied figuratively ; and so must corresponding words in all
languages.
" If baptizo," says the writer, " when applied first to a body, meant
to dip ; when applied to mind, it must necessarily have a different sense."
This is not philosophically correct. Words do not change their meaning
when used figuratively. The whole advantage of the figure depends on
the word's retaining its literal meaning. When Homer calls wheat the
marroio of man, marrow does not lay aside its own meaning, and become
another name for wheat. This would destroy the figure. The figure
asserts that one thing is another, without any alteration in the signi-
fication of words. When Christ calls Herod a fox, he gives no new
meaning to the word fox. The doctrine of rhetoricians on this subject
is erroneous and absurd. This I have proved at great length in a
treatise on the Figures of Speech, now out of print, but which may
shortly be re-published. Indeed, when a metaphorical application of a
word becomes one of its meanings, then it ceases to be a figure.
With respect to the point in which the likeness consists, between the
primary and secondary object in a figure, there never can be any ques-
tion. Every good figure has its own light. As the immersion of a body
is the complete covering of it in the thing in which it is immersed, so
the baptism of the Spirit must imply the sanctification of the believer in
mind and body. No one needs to ask the difference between a sprink-
ling of learning, and an immersion in it. When Cowper, in his trans-
lation of Homer, speaks of a hide drunk with oil, will any child need an
explanation of his meaning? When, again, he speaks of being drunk
with joy, his meaning is equally intelligible. Were the term drunk used
figuratively in respect to a thousand different things, every instance
would explain itself. Drunk ivith oil refers to the quantity absorbed by
the hide — drunk with joy is excess of joy : drunk with blood refers to the
quantity of blood shed by the woman in the book of Revelation, and to
the effect of it on herself. Why, then, should there be any doubt as
to the reference in the phrase immersion in the Spirit ? Could any man
really doubt as to the meaning of such expression, his case would indeed
be pitiable. He would have more need of medicine than of logic.
Three effects, the writer tells us, have proposed themselves as candi-
dates for this likeness. Let us for a moment attend to this award with
respect to their claims. The first is, that of colouring, -which he dis-
misses on the merits. " It is enough," says he, " to say that this
signification is without any support from profane or sacred literature."
REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. 311
Now while I agree in this award, I differ utterly with respect to the
ground on which it is rested. He treats a figurative application of a
word as if it were literal. He calls on it to justify itself by examples.
A figurative application of a word has no need of justification by similar
use. The first application is the best ; and it declines in value, every
time it is used. It requires nothing to justify it but likeness and agree-
ableness. While a writer has no right to use a new word, or an old one
in a new signification, he is perfectly at liberty to use any word in a new
figurative application.
" In respect to the second, which," says the writer, " is the classical
usage of the word, it should be remarked, that when in the classics the
mind is said to be baptized, (i. e. overwhelmed or oppressed,) never is
reference made to an abundance of good, but always and only to an
abundance of evil."
1. The classical meaning of the word is in no instance overwhelm.
2. Has not the writer admitted immerse as one of its meanings?
Why, then, confine the figurative application to one literal meaning,
when the word is admitted to have many 1
3. The word, neither in its literal meaning, nor its figurative applica-
tion, has anything to do with the nature of the thing to which it is ap-
plied. It denotes excess, and nothing but excess ; the nature of the
thing must be known otherwise. In the word itself there is no expres-
sion of either good or evil.
4. Admitting that the classical meaning of the word is overwhelm, this
would destroy the writer's theory. How would he contrive to get purify
out of overwhelm 1 Is it not admitted that purify comes from immersion,
by process of usage?
5. All the instances of classical usage in a figurative application, do
not confine this word to evil. As to immersion, bapto and baptizo are
the same ; and immersed in justice, a classical phrase, is not an immer-
sion in evil.
6. The English corresponding word immerse, is figuratively applied
to both good and evil; and all corresponding words in all languages
must be equally capable of such an application. Homer speaks of
ambrosial sleep, which Cowper translates, " Immersed in soft repose
ambrosial."
7. But with respect to figurative application, I am not bound to rest
on examples. On this point, as I have already intimated, I disregard
the authority of use. All I want is likeness, and likeness I have. The
author's allegation is the very ground on which Dr. Wiseman rests his
proof of transubstantiation from the words of our Lord. He admits that
the words themselves are capable of a figurative interpretation. How,
then, does he deny the consequence? He denies that the phrase, cat
flesh, is ever used figuratively, except as denoting destruction ; and as
this cannot be the meaning in our Lord's address, the words must be
literal. I deny the critical dogma as firmly as I do transubstantiation
itself: it is grounded on ignorance of philology ; it confounds the laws
of literal and figurative expression. The sanction of use is necessary in
assigning the meaning ofieords ; but no sanction, except likeness, is ncces-
312 REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE.
sary to justify its figurative application. Any word may be figuratively
used as no man ever used it before.
But even admitting that overwhelm is the meaning of the word, and
that figuratively, in classical usage, it always applied to calamity, the phi-
losophy of the writer is unsound. The manner might designate what is
in itself an evil, while the ordinance designated by the word might indi-
cate a blessing. Was not circumcision, as to the thing in itself, an evil?
Was it not emblematical of a blessing ? Is not the serpent an animal
accursed of God? Was not the brazen serpent indicative of the greatest
of all blessings? Were not sin offerings emblematical of a blessing ? Is
crucifixion no evil ? Are not believers said to be crucified with Christ 1
Is such a crucifixion no blessing? Sprinkling with blood is in itself
defilement ; yet it is emblematical of a blessing — even the blessing of
purification.
" Baptism," says the writer, " having been long used by the Jews as a
symbol of the purification of mind, would be closely associated with mind
by this idea. It would, therefore, be most unnatural to speak of the bap-
tism of mind, except in the sense of the purifying of mind."
1. What does he here mean by baptism? Does he mean immersion
in water for a symbolical purpose? If so, this is all we want. Does he
mean by baptism all the rights of purification ? The word never had
such an application. Does he mean purification by the word baptism ?
This his theory demands. Then the assertion is, that " Purification,
having been long used by the Jews as a symbol of purification of mind,
would be closely associated with mind by this idea."
2. Immersion in water, both among Jews and heathens, was always a
symbol of purification. Will men ever learn that this does not imply that
the word designates purification?
3. As all applications of the word to mind are figurative, no number
of applications having one figure, will prevent its application to another
— even to the very opposite. The emblem of purification is in the pure
water — not in the mode of its application ; defilement might equally be
referred to by immersion in a defiling substance. How could the writer
overlook the fact, that the Septuagint says, " Iniquity baptizeth me 1"
When iniquity is the baptizer, purification cannot be the effect.
4. Figurative baptism respects both body and mind. This criticism
is mere speculation, founded neither on principle nor on observation
of facts.
But is the writer aware of the consequence resulting from his asser-
tion, that the word baptism, in the phrase, baptism of the Spirit, is used
in its literal, not in a figurative acceptation? If the baptism in the
Spirit is a literal baptism, then must also the baptism in fire be a literal
baptism, for the same persons are to be baptized in the Holy Spirit and
fire. Now, as the writer, being a Protestant, can have no claim on
purgatory, I cannot see where he will get the fire. " The simple, un-
poetic style" must forbid a figurative baptism in fire, as well as in the
Holy Spirit. In like manner, " salted with fire" must employ literal
salt and literal fire. Yet, after all, I cannot see how literal salt will salt
with literal fire. Ah, my brethren, it is at a fearful expense that you
REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. 313
can resist this truth and defend your error. You must trample on all
the laws of language. Your ingenuity may devise innumerable schemes,
but you will never devise one that may not be dispersed as gossamer by
the breath of the morning.
Section V. — Author's Exposition of the Word in the Passages
in which it occurs. — In his exposition of the different passages in
which the word occurs, the writer commences with 2 Kings v. 14.
" Now," says he, "what is it likely that he did?" It is not likely, but
certain, that he did what he was commanded. Likelihood has nothing
to do with the question — it is a matter of testimony, and testimony must
be expounded by the ascertained meaning of the words employed to
convey it. He asks another question, " How is his action described?"
Why it is described as an immersion. Nothing can be plainer. Then,
is the matter at an end ? Not so fast ; stop a little, friend. " To reply
to these questions, it is proper to ascertain what was the washing
required by the Mosaic law in cases of leprosy." What has such an
inquiry to do with an answer to either of these questions? To know
what the prophet commanded, and what Naaman did in obeying, is any
reference necessary but what is contained in the record? This was
not a Jewish purification. What had Naaman to do with the law of
leprosy? — Even after he became a believer in the God of Israel, he had
nothing to do with the law of Israel. Much less, then, could he have to
do with that law, when he was a heathen. The author asserts of the
law of leprosy, that one part of it was ceremonial, the other sanative.
There was nothing sanative in it. The leper was healed before the
purification.
He asserts also that the washing and shaving of the leper were de-
signed to remove the danger of infection. Who told him so? The
preventive of infection is spoken of in the previous chapter. Can any
Christian be at a loss to know the emblem of the washing of the leper?
" Such were some of you, but ye are washed," &c.
Had it been a legal purification of a leper, it would have been per-
formed after his cure.
Had it been a legal purification of a leper, the whole ritual, with
respect to the cleansing of the leper, would have been observed. Here
the thing commanded was to effect a cure, and nothing but washing
was commanded.
The writer says, that the command to wash seven times is a command
to sprinkle seven times. A command to wash, however, is very different
from a command to sprinkle. Seven bathings cannot be effected by
seven sprinklings.
This is still more absurd in reference to Naaman. Would that Syrian
understand a command to wash, as importing Mosaic sprinklings?
The word louo signifies to bathe, and except when a part is men-
tioned, it refers to the person in general. This I have proved at large
in my dissertation on the word in reply to President Beecher.
In the law of leprosy, with respect to purification, there are seven
sprinklings with blood, and two washings with water. Our author
40
314 REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE.
thinks it more probable that the word wash in this command should
correspond to the seven sprinklings with blood, than to the two bathing9
in water ! But the command refers to neither.
" The law," the writer says, " did not enjoin dipping; and it is most
improbable that not being enjoined it should be generally practised."
If the law required bathing, or washing the body all over, how is it
improbable that they immersed? But the command of the prophet was
most certainly obeyed by clipping, though neither the command nor the
performance had anything to do with the law of Moses.
Seven bathings of his person were enjoined on Naaman for his cure;
which was performed by seven baptisms. If, then, baptism is purifica-
tion, there were seven purifications instead of one. The seven sprink-
lings of blood, with two washings, constituted only one purification.
The author thinks it improbable that Naaman dipped himself, and
gives four reasons : —
First, " He was only required to wash;" this requirement was performed
by immersion. He bathed, and consequently he immersed. Probability
has nothing to do in this matter ; we have testimony. That Naaman was
immersed is as certain as that the word of God speaks truth.
The second reason is, that " what he was commanded to do is repre-
sented as a small thing." And is it a great thing to dip seven times in
a river, in order to be cured of one of the most loathsome and disgusting
diseases that ever afflicted the human body ? If this is a great thing,
what is small ? He was enjoined to bathe — can there be any easier way
of bathing than by dipping?
The third reason to make it probable that Naaman was not dipped,
is, that " his temper of mind was not that which would lead him to do
more than was enjoined." Nor did he more than was enjoined; a
dipping is not more than a bathing.
The fourth reason is, that " his action is stated to have been in
accordance with the prophet's command." Doubtless ; and was not his
clipping a fulfilment of his command to bathe ? Reasons ! Were there
ever four such reasons alleged for or against anything? How easily are
our opponents satisfied with reasons for one side of the question ! On
. the other, Naaman himself, compared with them, was yielding in his
obstinacy. If I produce any such reasons, let them be treated with the
scorn they merit.
" But," says the writer, " whatever may have been the mode in which
Naaman obeyed the prophet's order, that his action is not described as
a clipping, is evident from these considerations." Let us hear the
author's considerations. " If so common a signification was to be
expressed, bapto, or some common word might be expected, and not a
word whose rare occurrence indicates that it had already some peculiarity
of meaning, like what it is found to have possessed afterwards."
1. Is not this extravagantly unreasonable and inconsistent? The
action the writer has himself declared to be not only a religious rite, but
the Jewish rite of the purification of a leper, yet this word is too solemn
to designate the immersion performed in it! He demands the little
wicked word bapto, to express a holy immersion. Had bapto been
REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. 315
actually used, I have no more doubt than I have that the pen is in my
hand, that he would have objected that baptizo was not used — the word
on which the controversy principally rests. " We have piped unto you,
and ye have not danced : we have mourned, and ye have not lamented."
We give you bapto, and you require baptizo : we give you baptizo, and
you require bapto. Can it be expected that in each passage we shall have
both words? I cannot, I will not, suppress my indignation at such
unreasonableness. The meaning of no word could ever be settled with
certainty, if such reasoning is allowable. Availing myself of like
liberties, I will undertake to show that there is not a word in the Greek
language whose meaning can be ascertained with certainty.
2. What does the writer mean by so common a signification 1 By a
common signification, I understand a common meaning of the word.
But if this is a common meaning of the word, why does he object to its
use on this occasion ? Does he mean so common an operation as
dipping ? Why should not the same operation have the same name,
whether common or infrequent? Does he mean common in contra-
distinction to sacred ? How can he consistently call this a common
dipping?
3. If a common word is employed in the command, may not a com-
mon word be employed with respect to the performance? Low is a
common word, yet it refers equally to things common and sacred. Why
may not baptizo do the same ?
4. Baptizo is not a more sacred word than bapto; the latter is applied
to Jewish rites more frequently than the former. If this gives holiness,
it is the holier of the two. It is indeed a little word, but it is often as
full of the odour of sanctity as Homer's ox hide was of "slippery lard."
It applies to the dipping of a flea's foot, yet it equally applies to the
Jewish immersions for purification Whether either of the words in
any instance refers to sacred or common things, is not known from them-
selves, but from connexion and appropriation.
5. Baptizo is applied to common things. Is it not applied to the
immersion of Aristobulus in bathing? It applies to the dipping of a
person in the sea — to the dipping of a man's hand in blood, for the pur-
pose of writing — to the dipping of the head of a crow, &c. &c.
6. But I resist the ground of this criticism. If a word is proved to
dip one object, it may dip another. It might as well be said that though
the word will apply to dipping in the Jordan, this does not prove that it
will apply to dipping in the Thames ; or that though a word may be
used to designate killing as to a nun, this is no proof that it will kill a
friar. Did I meet such criticism with respect to the meaning of a word
in the classics, I would not give it an answer.
7. That the Greek word signifies dip, is clear from the fact that this is
the meaning of the word in the original.
8. Has not the term sprinkle been used in the church of Rome for
hundreds of years, in reference to the performance of the most solemn
rites? Yet they can use the same word in reference to the most common
things. It is a most unfounded and ridiculous conceit, to suppose that
when a word is applied to solemn things, it is disqualified for service
316 REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE.
with respect to things that are common or trivial. This is philological
Puseyism.
The second reason from which, according to the writer, " It is evident"
that this word cannot here signify dipping, though dipping had been the
action performed, is that " there is nothing to show that dipping was
in the thoughts of the writer ; for there is no word in the context, and
nothing in the scope of the passage, having the least relation thereto.
On the contrary, while apart from the signification of the word itself,
there is nothing to lead to the supposition that Naaman was dipped, we
know that he was cleansed. The action, however performed, was a
purification."
1. Does the fact that there is nothing in the context to ascertain the
meaning of the word, make it evident that it has not such a meaning ?
This is lame logic. Evidence from context is of the greatest importance ;
but the want of it cannot prove an objection — much less disprove. In
many instances context can afford no evidence, but will be as favourable
to a false meaning as to the true. It is strange beyond measure that
the writer should rest on such arguments.
2. We have evidence from context that the word cannot mean purify.
The action prescribed as the means of purification was performed by
seven baptisms, or by seven times performing the thing imported by
the word. There was then only one purification, by means of seven
baptisms. If the meaning of the word is purify, then there would be
seven purifications.
3. This is still more absurd, because the purification spoken of
was the healing of the leper. Was he seven times cured ? Though the
action performed was the means of purification ; yet it was neither
ceremonial nor spiritual purification. It was purification from disease.
Naaman, though cleansed from his leprosy, was still, in the sense of the
Jewish law, equally impure as an uncircumcised man. His cleansing
did not fit him for the ordinances of Israel. When our Lord cleansed
the lepers, it was healing that was meant — not ceremonial cleansing ; as
all the cleansed lepers who were Jews, would afterwards be cleansed
by the law of Moses. The writer confounds the healing of disease with
legal purification.
The third reason, according to our author, which makes it evident
that dipping is not here expressed by the word, even though dipping
had been the mode in which Naaman obeyed the prophet's order, is,
" on this occasion Naaman became a worshipper of Jehovah." What has
Naaman's conversion to do with the meaning of the word 1 Just as
much as with the era of the Chinese empire. Every thing would have
been the same had Naaman continued in his idolatry. Even had his
conversion preceded his cure, he could not have received any Jewish
ordinance without circumcision. In this affair Naaman can be consi-
dered in no other light than that of an unclean heathen and idolator. He
was not in any point of view entitled to any of the legal purifications of
the law of Moses.
To turn away the testimony of the original in this passage, the writer
alleges that the Hebrew word signifies to stain and to moisten, as well as
REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. 317
to dip. Now granting this to be a fact, how utterly unreasonable is the
allegation! How can this serve his purpose here?! Did the prophet
command Naaman to stain himself seven times in Jordan ? Did he
command him to moisten? If the command is to bathe, must there not
be bathing in the performance ?
In Lev. iv. 17, moisten will not serve. The blood was to be sprinkled
from the finger ; and to do this, dipping is necessary. The finger might
be moistened, when the blood will not drop from the moistened finger.
" And the priest shall dip his finger in some of the blood, and sprinkle it
seven times before the Lord." Who would substitute moisten in this
place? So also Lev. xiv. 16, with respect to the oil. A finger might
be very moist with oil, when the oil would not drop from it.
The writer alleges the authority of the Syriac and the Vulgate, which
render both the word in the command, and the word expressing the
performance, by ivash. In a free translation this is often done ; but
it is not faithful. The readers of a translation ought to have as far as
possible all the distinctions of the original. But this is no proof that the
authors of such translations considered the words as perfectly identical.
Besides, this does not serve our author. He makes the word signify
not washing, but purification by seven sprinklings, as the whole purify-
ing process of the law of Moses.
Section VI. — Author's Interpretation of the Word in the
Septuagint, Isaiah xxi. 4. — In interpreting the word in the Septuagint,
Isaiah xxi. 4, the author alleges that, according to Schleusner, anomia
here has the sense of terror, as well as iniquity. Were this the asser-
tion of all the lexicographers in existence, it is false and extravagantly
foolish. It never signifies terror, nor anything but want of conformity
to law, or transgression of law. No matter in what way the Septuagint
is to be reconciled with the text of the original ; " iniquity immerses
me," is the only allowable translation.
With respect to this passage, the writer says, " There is no reference
to dipping — nothing even to suggest the idea." Whether there is a
reference to dipping depends entirely on the pre-established meaning of
this word. If the word literally, as it does, signify immerse, the figura-
tive reference must be immersion. If, with respect to the English ex-
pression, " iniquity immerses me," it should be alleged, " there is no
reference to dipping — nothing even to suggest the idea," what would be
our answer? Why it would be : Every one who knows anything of the
English language, knows that immerse signifies to dip. The same say I,
with respect to this allegation. What better reference can there be to a
mode, than to use the most definite word that signifies that mode ?
" But its common classic signification," says the writer, " when applied
to mind, to press down or overwhelm, is exactly suited to it." Neither
overwhelm, nor press down, is the classic meaning of this word, nor
any meaning at all. But is it not admitted that immerse is the primary
meaning, or at least one of the meanings of the word ? What then dis-
qualifies it here, even if terror is the baptizer ? Cannot terror immerse as
easily as it can press doion or overwhelm ? Schleusner's interpretation of
318 REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE.
the word anomia, has nothing to do with the meaning of the word baptizo.
It was not to accommodate any theory with respect to the meaning of
the word, that induced Schleusner to commit this violence on the word
anomia; but a desire to reconcile the Septuagint with the original.
This lexicographer, as well as others, gives immerse as the classical
meaning of baptizo.
The writer speaks of the word as applied to mind, as if it were applied
to mind literally. This is not so. When applied to mind it is always
figurative. Besides, press down or overwhelm is figurative, as well as is
immerse, when applied to mind. Is the mind pressed down on, or
overwhelmed literally ?
But why does the writer bring the classical meaning of a word
into Hebraistic Greek? He perceived this inconsistency, and attempts
in a very unsatisfactory manner, to account for it. "That baptizo"
says he, " though it had in the Hebraistic Greek another meaning,
should be once used by a translator in its ordinary classic sense, is what
might be expected." Just what might be expected! Why should it
be expected to be used in a sense which to those who made the transla-
tion, and those for whom it was made, it would not convey ? Why
once, rather than a million of times ? If it may once be used, it may so
be used any number of times. This admission shows that the word
never received a Hebraistic sense. Even if it had the two meanings,
might it not be appropriated to the ordinance of Christ, in the sense of
immerse ?
The author comes next to the case of Judith at the fountain of
Bethulia. " Then Holofernes commanded his guard that they should
not stay her : then she abode in the camp three days, and went out in
the night into the valley of Bethulia, and washed herself in a fountain
of water by the camp."
It is perfectly incomprehensible to me how any one can find a diffi-
culty in this instance. The most scrupulous and even romantic delicacy
is provided for in the retirement of the lady to a fountain in a valley.
It is evident that though in a camp, she was in such a part of it as
afforded her the necessary seclusion. Had she been the wife of the
general, she could not have greater security for privacy, nor better
means of effecting it. I must think that this plea of delicacy is unreason-
able and affected. Had not the ordinance of baptism been supposed to
be affected by this matter, I believe we should never have heard of a
complaint against the lady for indelicacy. But I care not, in the least
degree, how any one may decide as to views of delicacy in this matter.
However indelicate any one may choose to consider the conduct of
Judith, the fact is in proof, and I will not suffer views of delicacy to
question it.
The writer gives us a number of authorities for purification, by wash-
ing of hands and sprinkling with water. What has this to do with the
question ? We do not deny such purifications. Sprinklings are purifi-
cations, but they are not baptisms.
He tells us, that if we imagine that Judith was immersed in water,
we assume what is highly improbable. What sort of reasoning is this T
REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. 319
We neither imagine nor assume as to this fact ; we rest on the testimony
of the word. It is from the established meaning of the word, not from
views of independent probability, that we must derive our knowledge of
the fact. Even were the fact improbable in itself, the testimony of the
word would establish it. Were an English traveller to relate that in a
certain city he saw the people bathing in the street, we must believe
either that the persons referred to actually so bathed, or that the narrator
falsifies. The plan of this writer, however, would be to explain the word
bathe, as signifying to sprinkle a few drops of water, on the ground of
improbability.
But it is physically impossible, he tells us, that the fountain was suffi-
ciently deep. This shows that the writer does not understand the fun-
damental laws of controversy. Does not the burden of proof lie on
him ? Is it not the objector who must prove ? I care not if there had
not been a fountain at all in Bethulia; she might have been immersed
without it. If from other places I prove that immerse is the meaning
of the word, this in every situation will provide the water. We refuse,
then, to be gauger of the fountain of Bethulia : let them dip it who need
the evidence. But to allege that it is improbable that the fountain was
of sufficient depth, is perfectly captious. Do we not know that it is
still customary to bathe in sacred wells ? According to the philosophy
of our author, when an historian relates that an army forded a river, we
cannot believe him till it is proved by other evidence that the river was
in some part fordable. If it was forded, it must be fordable. If Judith
was baptized in the fountain of Bethulia, it must have been deep enough
for immersion.
Though I care not whether it be supposed that she was immersed in
the fountain, or in a cistern or bath beside it, yet it is plain that the his-
torian understands that it was in the fountain. The preposition, indeed,
does not designate this, but it is often used when in might have been
used. We do the same thing — we speak of bathing at a river or in a
river. But that the historian meant that she was immersed in the fountain
is plain, from his speaking of her praying immediately on ascending.
The English translation also understands it in this sense, for it renders
it, " when she came out."
The delicacy of our author is so very romantic, that it is not enough
for him that the guard of Holofernes were forbidden to hinder her — he
complains that they were not forbidden to watch her. He might still
require security from the Man in the Moon, for who could say, but, like
peeping Tom of Coventry, he might be awake while all others were
asleep? Can there be a greater instance of trifling than this? Could
the meaning of any word ever be determined if such a mode of reasoning
were admitted?
" If still it should be asserted," says the writer, " that she did dip her-
self, this will not prove that to dip is the sense of the word." Here again
the writer mistakes the burden of proof. Our business is merely to
answer objections. But what does he mean by saying that, " if it should
be asserted that she did dip herself, this will not prove that to dip is the
sense of the word ?" Surely he does not mean to say that such an
320 REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE.
assertion will not prove the fact ; for no one could allege that an asser
tion is proof. If he has any meaning, it must be that though she were
dipped, this would not prove that dip is the meaning of the word. This
admission, however, destroys his cause : for what is the ground on which
the admission can rest, but on the meaning of the word? If she was
dipped, this word must have dipped her. It cannot be known or ration-
ally admitted that she was dipped, but on the testimony of this word. To
admit that she was dipped, on the evidence of the passage, is to admit
immerse to be the meaning of baptizo.
He tells us that, " in whatever way it was performed, the historian
wished to represent it as a religious purification, and consequently that
this is the meaning of the word." Who doubts that it was a religious
purification? What sort of logic is it to say, " consequently this is the
meaning of the word?" How many times must I prove that purifica-
tion may be the nature of a rite, while it has not purification as its name ?
The Syriac also, he tells us, agrees with this — " lavabat se," she bathed
herself. As a free translation I can have no objection to this. But it
is not exact. A preacher expounding the words of Peter, " silver and
gold have I none," remarked very profoundly, that this might be trans-
lated gold and silver, or silver and gold. So if the lady dipped herself
in the fountain of Bethulia, she was bathed : if she was bathed in it, she
was dipped ; but dip and bathe are not therefore synonymous. The pas-
sage in Sirach, xxxi. 25, is the next that comes under the consideration
of the writer. The English translation is : " He that washeth himself
after touching a dead body, if he touch it again, what availeth his wash-
ing?" Literally it is, " He that is immersed from a dead body and again
touches it, what avails his bath or bathing?" The writer says, "It is
impossible that baptizomenos here means dipped. 1. Because if there
were any immersion, it is unlikely that this rite should be characterised
by a part not named in the law." Is a thing impossible, because it is
unlikely ? If immersion is not named in the law, it is implied in what
is named — bathing. This is the way that the law was fulfilled. Why,
then, may it not be so designated ? It is perfectly the same thing that
takes place in the case of Naaman — bathing was commanded; dipping
fulfilled the command. As immersion was the completion of the purifi-
cation after the touch of a dead body, the concluding rite alone is refer-
red to. This supposes all the rest. But whatever may be supposed the
reason, the immersion only is named.
The second reason alleged why the word cannot here signify immer-
sion, is, " It is construed with apo, which is not suited to that significa-
tion, for such an expression as to dip from, could not be used in any
language." What if I could show him the very expression ? " Dip it
in the blood," Exod. xii. 22, and many other places, is literally, dip it
from the blood. But though the expression is the same, it does not pro-
ceed on the same principle. Here to immerse from a dead body is an
elliptical expression, and means to dip in order to purify from the touch,
or after the touch, of a dead body. The thing was so common, that all
persons at once understood and could supply the ellipsis. All common
processes are usually expressed elliptically.
REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. 321
A third reason alleged by the author is : " The question shows that
the attention of the writer was directed, not to the manner in which a
rite might be performed, but to its end. Without doubt purification
was the thing in the mind of the writer ; but might not this be the case
though he referred to it as an immersion? "A man once dipped," says
the writer, " could not be undipped." Very true ; but could not his
dipping become unavailing, which is the thing that is said ? Even were
the word purification used, it is in this respect perfectly the same thing.
A man purified becomes defiled by touching a defiling object after puri-
fication.
A fourth reason is, " The correspondence which exists between eucho-
menos, he who prays, in the 24th verse ; baptizomenos , in the 25th verse ;
nesteuon, he who fasts, in the 26th, makes it probable that as the first
and the last are religious terms, and are applied to those who are seeking
the favour of God ; that baptizomenos, also, has a religious sense, and is
peculiarly appropriated to those who, by ceremonial purifications, would
prepare themselves for the worship of the Most Holy."
Euchomai is not exclusively a religious word ; nesteuo is not a reli-
gious word ; and baptizo, signifying immerse, can be as religious as either
of them, without renouncing a tittle of its meaning or adopting anything
in addition. May not an immersion be performed for a religious pur-
pose, without making it signify anything but immersion ? It is most
extravagantly absurd to suppose, that if a word is at any time applied
to religious things, it is thereby incapacitated for serving generally, and
must become a religious term.
But that baptizomenos here means immersed, is demonstratively evident
from the fact that loutron, bath, is given as a corresponding word. The
question is not, what avails his purification ? but, what avails his
bathing ? Baptism, then, and bathing, refer to the same thing. They
are not the same in meaning, but they reciprocally imply each other.
This determines, beyond controversy, that the word does not signify
purification. Instead of extending to all the rites of Mosaic purification,
it applies only to the bathing. Even were it identical with bathing, it
cannot designate purification ; for louo and bathe apply only to the washing
of animal bodies. To bathe from a dead body requires the same ellipsis
as to immerse from a dead body. And if it is bathing, it will equally
serve our purpose. A person is buried in bathing, as well as in immersion.
What the author says upon Mark vii. 3, is mere conjecture. The
meaning of the word in this place must be determined by its meaning
where there is no controversy. In all controverted cases, let the mean-
ing be settled independently of them, and bring the result to settle the
controversy. If the Rabbins say, that in the time of our Lord there
was no such custom as immersion on the occasions mentioned, I will
reply, I believe the evangelist rather than you. What do you know
of the matter more than others ? Have not others had access to all
the documents accessible to you? The evangelist declares, that on
certain occasions it was then usual to baptize themselves ; and baptize,
in all the Greek language, signifies nothing but immerse. What diffi-
culty is there in this matter ?
41
322 REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE.
But the writer tells us, " That copper vessels and couches should be
immersed in water, is another great improbability ; with regard to many
of the latter, it would hardly be practicable, with regard to all it would
be difficult and injurious." A radical error pervades the whole of this
writer's criticism. He founds the meaning of words on views of proba-
bility, without reference to their use in the language. On such a first
principle nothing could ever be known from history. We make the his-
torian express what we think probable, independently of his testimony;
and whatever may be his testimony, we force it to renounce a meaning
that seems to us improbable. A principle more absurd, fanatical, and
mischievous could not be adopted. We are not left to determine the
question by views of probability or improbability, independently of the
testimony of the words employed to convey the testimony. The question
must be decided by the legitimate meaning of the language, whatever
may be the result. However improbable any person may choose to con-
sider the matter, if it is attested by suitable evidence, it is to be believed.
If the thing is not true in the legitimate meaning of the testimony, the
reporter must be branded as a falsifier. His language is not to be
forced in order to harmonize with his veracity. Even profane history
commands our belief with respect to many things that, independently of
the testimony, are improbable. But to me there is nothing improbable
in anything here related. The things said to be baptized are all
capable of immersion. Why should we force and falsify the word of God
to save the character of the Jews of our Lord's time from the imputation
of gross superstition 1 It would not disturb me in the least if such im-
mersions were even injurious, difficult, and disagreeable, though not one
of them is really such. The words of the Holy Spirit must not be tor-
tured to make superstitious practices easy to the devotee. Should an
English traveller relate that he had lately discovered a colony of Jews
who immersed all the things mentioned in Mark vii. 3, should we say
either that he is a liar, or that by immerse, he means purify by sprink-
ling? No truth could stand on such a ground of interpretation. Give
it to the Socinian, and he will overturn orthodoxy without any trouble.
Were I to make a selection of the false principles of interpretation em-
ployed by our opponents, admitting their validity, I would undertake to
prove or disprove anything.
In a note the writer edifies us with an account of the different ways
in which the Jews washed their hands : he might as well inform us of
the way in which they ate their breakfast. The question is not about
purification in general, nor about the way in which the Jews washed
their hands, but about something that was done under the name of
baptism.
" That it was not the writer's design," says the author, " to speak of
these baptisms as immersions, appears also from the train of thought
which the passage exhibits. He wished to explain the reason why the
disciples of Jesus were censured for not washing their hands. It was
not likely that for this end he would refer to the practice of dipping the
whole body, even if it were customary ; but it is likely that he would
refer to purifications similar to what they had neglected."
REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. 323
Now, what is the use of such airy speculation? The evangelist
wished to do whatever he did ; and what he did can be known only
from what he has said. Why should he be confined to the instance of
superstition respecting washing the hands ? Why should he not pro-
ceed to give instances of more extravagant superstition ?
He tells us that the water-pots, John ii. 6, will not serve us. I care
not that those pots would not hold as much as an egg-shell ; we have no
need of them. We care not where water was found ; superstition will
be at no loss to procure it.
The most illiterate person may perceive the absurdity of translating
the word by purify in this place. What nonsense would it be to say,
" They eat not unless they wash their hands ; and coming from market,
they eat not unless they are purified !" Is not the washing of the hands
a purification ?
" How this purification was performed," he says, " is not expressed ;
probably by washing and sprinkling combined." And are we to take
his dreams, rather than the testimony of the word itself? Another
person may as warrantably allege, that the ceremony was performed with
holy oil, salt, &c. It is to me unspeakably astonishing that Christians
will permit themselves to sport so wantonly with the word of the living
God. Expositions of Homer on this ground would be of no use in
ascertaining the customs referred to by him. Conjecture and probabili-
ties have no just authority in history either sacred or profane. To
attempt to ascertain a custom by conjecture, is not only to communicate
no knowledge, but to deceive the unwary, who sometimes feed vora-
ciously on the husks of conjecture.
But purify is not entitled to compete here, or anywhere else, as a
meaning of this word. It is like a person proposing himself as a
candidate for a seat in parliament, who is not qualified by possessing
the landed income required by law. It nowhere can be shown to be
the meaning of the word ; if not, why should it be a competitor
as the meaning in a disputed passage ? It is in proof that the word
signifies immerse ; no meaning can compete with this that is not also
in proof. He who will not admit such laws of interpretation, cannot
be worthy of being reasoned with. He refuses to admit self-evident
truth.
" The next passage for consideration," he tells us, " is Luke xi. 37."
He tells us " that nothing is said of the retirement of the host, or of any
invitation given by him to his guests, to retire to the bath." No such
information is necessary. It is evident that there must have been
means of performing the thing meant by the word ; but whether these
were in the Pharisee's house, or elsewhere, is of no consequence. The
Pharisee was with Jesus in the multitude, and accompanied him to his
house. Whether, then, the bath was in his house, or elsewhere, he
must have known that Jesus did not use it. A thousand means of
immersion might have existed, of which we can know nothing ; and
common sense should teach the most ignorant that such information is
not necessary. Is it to be expected that the whole conversation of the
host with his guests is to be recorded ?
324 REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE.
How differently would an antiquarian reason from this passage !
" Here," he would say, " it is palpably evident that bathing for reli-
gious purposes was exceedingly common among the Jews at this period;
and that there must have been many baths, both public and private.
Most probably every house had one or more." How differently do men
reason, when an ordinance of Christ must be made to conform to the
practice of man !
The writer tells us, that in his reply, Jesus did not refer to immersion,
but to purification. What wonder is this? Was not the immersion
for the purpose of purification? Is it strange, then, that in his reply,
Jesus should refer to the thing, and not to the mode in which it was
effected ? Does this imply that immersion was not the mode of per-
forming the purification?
" The last passage referring to Jewish baptisms," says the writer, " is
Heb. ix. 9. During which time offerings and sacrifices are presented,
which are incapable of making perfect, in respect to the conscience, him
who does service only with things to be eaten and to be drunk, and
with various baptisms, services of the body, imposed until the season for
reformation."
The writer here translates for himself. If, then, I can answer him
on the ground of his own translation, the refutation must be unsuspicious
and satisfactory. Even this translation is in perfect accordance with
my view of the meaning of the word. It is substantially the translation
of Macknight ; and Macknight even here translates the word immersion,
— " both gifts and sacrifices are offered, which cannot, with respect to
conscience, make him perfect who worshippeth only with meats and
drinks, and divers immersions." Even according to this translation, the
service or worship respects not only the gifts and sacrifices offered in the
tabernacle, but every act of service in the whole law of Moses. It must
respect the services performed in their own houses, as well as those
performed at the tabernacle. The meaning is, that the gifts and sacri-
fices offered in the tabernacle could not perfect persons whose worship
consisted in the things mentioned, which had no excellence in them-
selves. No translation could suit me better. The baptisms, then, must
apply to every rite performed by immersion.
Should Professor Stuart's view of the connexion between the ninth
and tenth verses be preferred, it is equally suitable to my view of the
meaning of this word. He understands the meats and drinks, as exclu-
sive of the gifts and sacrifices. " Meats and drinks" says he, " have
respect to that which was clean and unclean, under the Jewish dispen-
sation ; and not, (as some critics interpret the word,) to the meats and
drinks offered to the Lord." He makes the baptisms refer to the cere-
monial ablutions of the Jews. Doubtless they include every thing that
was performed by immersion.
" The baptisms here mentioned," says the writer, " were a part of the
service of the tabernacle." By this he seems to assert, that all the things
here referred to were performed in the tabernacle. There is no foundation
for this, even in his own translation, more than in that of Professor Stuart,
who as to baptism is on the same side. The two dispensations are
REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. 325
contrasted in general. He might as well confine it to the tabernacle,
to the exclusion of the temple ; or confine it to the things done in the
tabernacle, to the exclusion of things done elsewffere. The service of
the worshipper, or the person who does the service, must respect all
the things included in the law, which is the rule of his service. Indeed,
in the thirteenth verse, the cleansing by the rite of purification, with
the ashes of a heifer, which was not done in the tabernacle, is expressly
mentioned.
" We may learn what they were," says the writer, " by referring to the
Old Testament, Exod. xxix. 4 : ' And Aaron, and his sons, thou shalt
bring unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and shalt wash
them with water.' Exod. xxx. 19 : ' For Aaron and his sons shall
wash their hands and their feet thereat : when they go into the tabernacle
of the congregation, they shall wash with water, that they die not ; or
when they come near to the altar to minister, to burn offering made by
fire unto the Lord, so they shall wash their hands and their feet, that
they die not.' " Now from what source do we learn that the things
referred to in these passages were baptisms? They are not here called
baptisms. We can therefore learn that they were baptisms, only from
our previous knowledge of the word, and from the fact that the thing
signified by the word, whatever that may be, takes place in the per-
formance of the thing here mentioned. If then they were not immer-
sions, I would permit no man to call them baptisms. I am, however,
quite willing that they should be called baptisms : the first as an immer-
sion of the whole body ; the second as an immersion of the hands and feet.
But I will not extend this act of grace to the next examples, Numb.
viii. 5 : " And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Take the Levites from
among the children of Israel, and cleanse them; and thus shalt thou do
unto them to cleanse them : sprinkle clean water of purifying upon
them." Numb. xix. 20 : " But the man that shall be unclean, and shall
not purify himself, that soul shall be cut off from among the congrega-
tion, because he hath defiled the sanctuary of the Lord. The water of
separation hath not been sprinkled upon him ; he is unclean." Where
did the writer learn that these were baptisms? Are they called bap-
tisms here? Are they called baptisms anywhere else? He might as
well assert that they were circumcisions. They are purifications: but
all purifications are not baptisms.
" Such," says the writer, " were the principal, if not the only baptisms
alluded to by the apostle." It fills me with astonishment beyond what I
can express, that any person could make such an assertion. Is there
a man of common sense in England who in reading, or hearing these
passages, would understand them to be called baptisms? If this passes
for proof, anything may be proved : I call the attention of the unlearned
to this. If our opponents can misrepresent evidence, in a case so pal-
pable, can they be trusted in cases of profound criticism ? If such things
are the baptisms referred to by the apostle, it is not because they are
called baptisms in the law of Moses, nor because of any explanation in
this passage, but from the meaning of the word independently ascertained.
" There is," says the writer, " nothing to show that one immersion of
326 REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE.
the whole body was ever required." If bathing was required, does not
this imply immersion? An immersion of any part, and of anything, is
as good in proof of the meaning of the word, as the immersion of the
whole body. Besides, it is not the command, but the performance, that
is here referred to ; and the case of Naaman shows us that dipping is
the performance of a command enjoining bathing. Justin Martyr also
speaks of dipping in reference to bathing, as prescribed by the law of
Moses. But it is quite enough for us, that the law of bathing may have
been fulfilled by immersion.
" It is superfluous to remark," says the writer, " that even if there
had been many immersions, these could not be styled diaphoroi. The
dipping of various things could not be various dippings." Why does
he say so, when examples in contradiction occur every day in every
language ? In Deut. xxii. 9, it refers to different sorts of seed ; and
instead of implying a great variety of difference, a single variety is
sufficient. It applies to two seeds that differ, as well as to a thousand
sorts. Do not our opponents say, that John's baptism, and our Lord's
baptism, were different baptisms? They were different in neither form
nor emblem, and the difference was confined to two. This passage, then,
supposed to be so unequivocally against us, gives us no disturbance.
Indeed we require no more than the repetition of the same act to
exemplify this difference. The word is baptismos, not baptisma; and
the different baptisms might refer to different acts of immersion of the
same object. In 2 Mac. xiv. 21, the word is applied to two different
seats of the same kind. The only difference here was that Nicanor and
Judas, instead of sitting on the same throne or chair of state, when they
sat in conference, had each a chair for himself, a different seat. Every
one of my opponents has brought this word against me as if it were
utterly irreconcilable with my doctrine ; but it is the most harmless
word imaginable. Their criticisms are founded on mere speculation —
not on either observation of the various occurrences of the word, or in
its philosophy.
" Baptisms," says the writer, " were rites performed in the Jewish
temple in connexion with the worship of God. Immersions were never
performed in the Jewish temple," &c.
Where is it said that all baptisms were confined to the temple ? All
baptisms were not in the temple. Immersions of some things were con-
stantly performed in the Jewish temple. " But his inwards and his legs
shall he wash in water, Lev. i. 9." Did not this imply immersion?
" He made also ten bases, and put five on the right hand, and five on the
left, to wash in them ; such things as they offered for the burnt offering,
they washed in them ; but the sea was for the priests to wash in." Are
not these immersions ? Are not these different immersions even in the
temple? But we are not, as we have already seen, confined to the
temple, even by the author's own translation ; we have the whole range
of Jewish practice both public and private.
But why does the author say that baptisms were rites in the Jewish
temple in connexion with the worship of God ? Is not this as inconsist-
ent with his own doctrine as with mine? Does he not make the cleans*
REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. 327
ing of a person defiled by the touch of a dead body, a baptism 1 Was
this performed in the temple ? Was this in connexion with worship 1
It was a part of the service of God, but not an immediate act of worship
— much less of worship in the temple.
" The apostle states," says he, " that these baptisms were appointed by
God." This is not the thing which the apostle states ; he states what
the worshipper did in performing what the law of God required. If
immersion fulfilled the law, and if immersion was the way in which the
law was usually fulfilled, it is quite enough for us.
" Immersions of the person," says the writer, were not appointed by
God." Bathings were appointed by God, and bathings imply immer-
sions. But it is enough if the bathings were usually performed by im-
mersion. Besides, there is no reason to confine these immersions to the
persons. It may include every thing in which there was immersion,
whether of persons or things. Indeed it is quite sufficient if we can
show different immersions of anything. Neither the word nor the con-
nexion restricts.
" They were," says he, " purifications with water." Jewish baptisms
were not all purifications with water. They were in many different
things, blood — blood and water, fire, &,c.
" Only in one instance in the whole Mosaic law," says he, " is there
a direction to put the object to be purified in water : Lev. xi. 32." And
were this the only one, it would serve us. There were different immer-
sions in several different respects; and that they were not performed in
the temple, and were not immersions of persons, is of no importance. It
is quite enough that they were immersions.
But why does he refuse immersions in other things ? Are not immer-
sions in other things equally worthy of the name? "Every thing that
may abide the fire, ye shall make it go through the fire." Numb. xxxi.
23. Here is a baptism in fire, and as good a baptism as one in water. It
is added, " and all that abideth not the fire shall go through the water."
Here is a different baptism in water. We are at no loss to make out
different baptisms under the law.
In every view of this passage it is in harmony with our doctrine ; in
no view of it does it demand any other meaning in the disputed word.
But let it never be lost sight of, that the burden of proof lies on our
opponents. We stand on the defence. We do not allege this passage
as proof; our duty is merely to reply to objections. Our opponents,
almost in every instance, overlook this. They think if by new transla-
tions, and suppositions not founded on the passage, they can make the
passage suitable to their purposes, they succeed. We demolish all their
batteries, the moment we show that the passage does not necessarily
import what they teach. There is nothing less understood than the
burden of proof. Controversialists usually bandy it from one to another;
as if it were a matter of mere etiquette It must always depend on
self-evidence.
But I can carry the field with respect to this passage, even if all I have
said on it were to be given up. Admitting that the many baptisms must
include all Jewish washings, the word may still have its primary meaning,
328 REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE.
in reference to the Christian ordinance. In excluding from this passage
ah purifications but such as were done by immersion, I defend my own
doctrine with respect to the word as being univocal. But the doctrine
of immersion, with respect to the Christian ordinance, may stand inde-
pendently of this.
Besides, washing and purification are very different. The latter is a
generic word of which the former is a species. All washings are purifi-
cations, but all purifications are not washings. Washing is performed
by means of water ; purification may be performed by means of blood,
fire, sulphur, &c.
Even on the supposition that the word here signifies washing, and
that in the ordinance of Christian baptism it has the same sense, if the
person to be baptized must be washed, it will be quite as objectionable
to our opponents. I think immersing a person is the easiest way of
washing him.
One of the most romantic exploits of this champion, is that at the Red
Sea. The hosts of Pharaoh did not attempt anything more fanatically
daring. The baptism here is the mere separation of the children of
Israel from their enemies by means of the cloud and the sea intervening
between them and their enemies. There is neither dipping nor sprink-
ling, washing nor purifying, in this baptism. But let us hear himself:
" There is one passage," says he, " which, though it does not refer to
rites of baptism, speaks of a baptism of the Jews, and may properly be
noticed here. 'I am unwilling that you should be ignorant, brethren,
that our fathers were all under (the guidance of) the cloud, and all
passed through the sea, and all were baptized for Moses by the cloud
and by the sea.' 1 Cor. x. 1."
It is always a suspicious thing in a controversialist to be obliged on
all occasions to translate for himself, and form his version for serving his
purpose. The best version may occasionally admit improvement; but
if on the subject of controversy, a party can find nothing right in a
translation made by those, as to the point in question, on the same side
with himself, every impartial judge will receive his translations with the
utmost caution. In my observations I shall advert to nothing but what
concerns the point in hand.
1. In rendering the phrase under the cloud, by under the guidance of
the cloud, where does the translator find the supplement? It is not im-
plied in the text ; it is not warranted by any supposable ellipsis. This
figure always grounds on the fact, that the elliptical matter will be
suggested by frequency of the use of the phrase, so that it cannot be
either wanted or mistaken. If it does not necessarily and obviously
present itself, it is essentially vicious in rhetoric, and utterly unworthy
of revelation. I am bold to assert that such an ellipsis as the writer
here supposes, does not exist in our language. Under the cloud cannot
signify under the guidance of the cloud. There is not a rhetorician in
existence who would warrant such a figure. This is downright forgery
— forgery as palpable as to add a cipher to a one pound note, to make it
ten. Controversialists who are not acquainted with the philosophy of
figurative language, imagine that they may in explication avail them-
REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. 329
selves of their service as often as an exigency requires. This enables
ignorance to do miracles. But the operations of figurative diction are
as subject to law, as are those of words used literally.
2. The thing here supplied by the authority of ellipsis, is never once
literally expressed in the Scripture accounts of this cloud. It is a strange
ellipsis that supplies to a word or phrase an idea never elsewhere ex-
pressed. Now not one of the references to this cloud calls it the guide
of the Israelites, or declares that the Israelites were under its guidance.
So far from this, God is said to lead them by the cloud. He was in the
cloud, and was himself their guide and leader. This was a mere signal.
It might as well be said, than an army is under the guidance of the
trumpet.
3. This exposition takes away all emblematical meaning from the
cloud, and considers it merely as a signal by agreement. It might as
well have been a flag as a cloud.
4. But it is evident that the cloud is here considered not merely
as a signal, but as an emblem similar to that of baptism, whatever bap-
tism is.
" The cloud," he says, "did not cover them, so that they might be said
to be immersed in it." Can it be more clearly said that the cloud
covered them ? Is it not expressly said that they were all under the
cloud, and in the cloud?
" We are expressly told," says he, " that they were not immersed in
the sea." I say we are expressly told that they were immersed in the
sea — the apostle directly asserts that they were all baptized in the sea.
Where are we told, either directly or by implication, that they were not
so immersed? " The sacred historian," adds the writer, " says that the
Egyptians were immersed and overwhelmed, and that the Israelites were
not. 'For the horse of Pharaoh went in with his chariots and with
his horsemen into the sea ; and the Lord brought again the waters of the
sea upon them ; but the children of Israel went on dry land in the midst
of the sea.' "
I have no objection that the descent of the Egyptians into the sea be
called an immersion ; but this immersion was to them a dry dip, as well
as to the Israelites. When they went in, the water was removed, and
they, as well as the Israelites, at first stood on dry ground. When the
water returned, they were overwhelmed, which was not the case with
the Israelites. Both armies are said to go down into the sea. On the
very same principle that they are said to go into the sea, when the place
where they entered was dry land, they may be said to be immersed in
the sea, while the water surrounded them walking on dry ground.
The man who asks, how could they be immersed in the sea, when
the water was removed? may ask, how could they go into the sea, when
the place where they walked was dry ? No rational man can need in-
formation on such a point. We talk familiarly of plunging into a forest,
and of being immersed in a valley. The going down into the sea is the
immersion — the overflowing of the waters was the overwhelming of the
Egyptians.
" St. Paul," says the writer, " declares that the Israelites were bap-
42
330 REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE.
tized both by the cloud, and by the sea ; but from the history of Moses,
we learn that they were neither dipped, nor immersed, nor overwhelmed,
by either the one or the other." They were not overwhelmed, and
they are not said to be overwhelmed. They are said to be baptized,
and they were immersed in the sea, as they went down into the sea.
They were immersed in the cloud, as they were said both to be under it,
and in it. If on the top of a mountain I am suddenly involved in
mist, shall any one misunderstand me, when I say that I was suddenly
immersed in a cloud 1
But how were the Israelites purified by the cloud, and by the sea ?
Why, by being through this means separated from the Egyptians. Upon
this I remark, 1. Separation is no purification of any kind, either real or
emblematical. Does the author ever find mere separation called purifi-
cation ? Was ever extravagance more extravagant than this ? I sup-
pose he confounds purification with the original idea in the word that
signifies holiness. But holiness and purification are as distinct as sin
and duty.
2. In this view of the matter, the things that separated, might as well
have been anything else as the cloud and sea. A curtain would have
served as well as a cloud; and a mountain as well as the sea. The wall
of China would purify as well as the Red Sea.
3. Even were the passage translated purified by the cloud and by the
sea, it would imply that the purification was something done by means of
the cloud, when they were in it ; and by the sea, when they were passing
through it. The cloud and sea could not have been mere separation ;
but must have been means of purification by application to their bodies.
Would any reader understand purification by a cloud, as expressing
separation from something, by intervention of the cloud ; or purification
by the sea, as expressing separation from idolaters, by intervention of the
sea? The application of the purifying substance to the thing purified, is
essential to purification.
4. The baptism was not by the cloud, and by the sea, but in the cloud,
and in the sea. The primary meaning of the preposition, all must allow,
refers to place ; and to employ a word in a secondary meaning, in a
situation where the primary is not only suitable, but where it most obvi-
ously suggests itself, would be a Very essential fault in style. The pre-
position is often to be translated with, but in the sense by, grammarians
themselves acknowledge it to be rare. Why then desert the obvious
meaning for one rare, and in this place the cause of obscurity, or
rather of necessary misunderstanding?
Again, the preposition en, with the verbs in question, always, in other
cases, signifies in. Why another meaning on this occasion ? Must
all words desert their usual meaning, and all phrases their syntax,
to favour the claims of this pretender purification ? Further, the con-
nexion demands in, as the meaning of the preposition. In the cloud,
refers to under the cloud ; in the sea, to through the sea. It must
then have been when they were under the cloud, that they were baptized
with respect to the cloud; and while they passed through the sea,
that they were baptized with respect to the sea. For what purpose does
REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. 331
the apostle so solemnly call their attention to the fact, that their fathers
were under the cloud, and passed through the sea, if their baptism, which
is connected with this, did not take place while they were under the
cloud, and while they passed through the sea? According to the writer,
the baptism of the Israelites by the sea, was accomplished after they
passed the sea ; according to the apostle, the baptism was by passing
through the sea.
5. There is in the passage a reference to the ordinance of baptism,
and something is said to take place in the passage through the Red
Sea, that is called a baptism unto Moses. There must be, then, some
similarity between Christian baptism, and what took place with respect
to the Israelites. But purification as a mere separation, without respect
to the nature of the things that purified, cannot be this baptism. In this,
there is no emblem at all. The sea and the cloud are not considered as
emblematical : it might as well have been a volcano, or a morass.
There is no baptism at all ; the sprinkling of the cloud, and the spray
of the sea, are less extravagant fancies than is this purify. Even though
this could be called a purification, it could not be called baptism, for
every purification is not baptism.
Immersion and nothing but immersion will suit this passage. Did
I choose to stand here on the defensive merely, I might content myself
with answering objections. It would be enough for me, on that ground,
to show that the common version is warrantable, even though I should
admit that this passage is capable of the translation of my opponent. If
it is also capable of mine, it cannot stand as an objection against me. If
the word can have its ordinary meaning here, without any force, it is all
my case requires. But I do not stand here, merely on the defensive ;
I found proof on this passage, and maintain that no view of the meaning
of the word will suit this passage, but that of our ve/sion. On this
ground, the burden of proof lies on me, and I will sustain it. I refuse
nothing to my opponent that in my turn I demand from him. Truth is
my only object, and sternly just reasoning, grounded on self-evident
principles, is my only reliance, both in defence and attack.
The author comes next, to the consideration of the passages that
relate to the baptism of John, Matt. iii. 1. The first thing he quarrels
with is, the meaning of the word in our view of it, as it regards the title
of the Baptist. " The dipper," he says, " is offensive, not merely because
it is strange, but especially because it has no apparent fitness to his
work, as the great predicted reformer of the day." On this I remark,
1. This is a most unjustifiable foundation of evidence in a matter that
must be decided solely by the testimony of language, according to the
legitimate laws of interpretation. The meaning of what is said, is to be
determined solely on the authority of the meaning of words, ascertained
by the occurrences in the language of the documents. Our business is
to examine what is the meaning of his title, not to speculate on what
would have been the most suitable title. I am quite contented to learn
from the word of God. I never presume to dictate to it : our view of
fitness is no ground on which to rest faith.
2. This is a most hazardous way of attempting to settle the question
332 REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE.
If it shall be found in the day of judgment, that the meaning of this title
is what this writer represents as so unsuitable and improper, is it a light
thing to find folly in the Divine wisdom ? The Spirit of wisdom calls
him John the Baptist ; if this is John the dipper, then this writer rebukes
the Spirit of God, as employing an unsuitable title to designate the office
of John. Is it becoming, is it wise, to risk such observations? Will
men never cease to teach the Almighty ?
3. This observation is as absurd as it is impious. How is it that the
writer did not perceive that even had John been called the purifier, the
title must refer to the rite, and not to spiritual purification I It was
as a baptizer, not as a great reformer, that John had his title, whatever
may be supposed its import. Did John purify any man from sin ? This
is as rank Puseyism as ever proceeded from the cave of the Pythoness
in Oxford.
" It is surely more likely," says the writer, " that John and his
disciples would select a name that would express what was spiritual,
than one that would express only what was sensible." Is it not strange
to astonishment that he could venture such a speculation, with the word
circumcision before his eyes? Did this word express what was spiritual,
or what was sensible ? A volume of such assertions would not form the
shadow of an argument.
How John's title was originally conferred, we are not informed ; but
whatever way he got it, we know it only is the title by which he is desig-
nated by the Spirit of inspiration. But whether the title is Divine or
human, the argument from the word is perfectly the same. The title is
from the ritual service.
It is most lamentable that a dissenter should speak of the spiritual
portion of John's icork. Did the spiritual work belong to John? If
John was a spiritual purifier, then baptism is salvation.
4. But did the writer forget that Tertullian, and a multitude of
translators, have designated John by the very title supposed to be so
unsuitable and offensive ? Here fact refutes theory. Can demonstration
be stronger ? John the dipper was the usual title of the prophet. *
" The term baptize," says the writer, " is used alone, and in connexion
with the names of places. Why dost thou baptize ? John was baptizing
at the downs, at Bethany, at Enon. Now terms denoting a definite end
may with propriety be thus used, but not terms denoting a general mode
of action."
This has an appearance of profound philology ; but it is an appearance
only to those who are unacquainted with the effect of the principle of
grammatical appropriation. When a word is appropriated to a rite, the
frequency of its application when speaking on the subject enables us to
use it with an ellipsis of the words usually connected with it in other
cases. The thing is of so frequent occurrence in the conversation of every
day, that I am surprised that any one who has paid any attention to the
philosophy of language, should overlook it. Should any person but a
priest anoint a sick person with oil for the good of his soul, every Roman
Catholic would ask him, Why do you anoint ? He would not think it
necessary in order to be intelligible, to say, Why do you anoint dying
REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. 333
persons with oil, for the salvation of their souls, as you are not a priest ?
Indeed every trade and every workshop exemplify this process every day,
though it is so strange to this Biblical critic. But it is strange that the
writer did not perceive that the word circumcise can be used in the same
way. Can we not say, Why do you circumcise 1 Why do you cut around?
Here the philosophy of this critic would object, " terms denoting a gen-
eral end may with propriety be thus used, but not terms denoting a gen-
eral mode of action." The word circumcision, then, cannot signify to
cut around, but it must signify to purify.
The word, baptize, whatever may be supposed its signification, was
appropriated to the Christian rite, and in that meaning it may be used
in the manner objected to, with the strictest propriety, and with the most
lucid perspicuity. Indeed even purify itself, had it been appropriated
to this ordinance, would be subject to the same law. In the question,
Why dost thou purify? there is an ellipsis of " thy disciples with water,
as an emblem of the washing away of their sins."
" This word," says the writer, " is so associated with the terms be-
longing to religion, that it is highly probable the accordance of signifi-
cation was such as to favour the union. Jesus having been dipped and
praying, is felt at once to be incongruous."
Here again circumcision destroys the philosophy of the critic. Could
it not be said of a proselyte of Judaism, " having been circumcised he
prayed?" Whenever a modal word is appropriated to a rite, it designates
that rite in every reference, and the appropriation supplies what is neces-
sary. When it is said, " Jesus having been immersed, prayed," it is as
well known that the immersion relates to the rite, as that prayer was
offered to God.
" The contrast made between the baptism with water," says the writer,
" and the baptism with a holy influence and with fire, would alone indi-
cate the meaning of the word. Fire is commonly employed in the Bible
as emblematical of the means of destruction."
1. This observation is founded on the same erroneous view of figura-
tive language, on which Wiseman rests his defence of transubstantiation.
A figurative application of a word needs resemblance only to justify it :
it disdains the sanction of precedent.
2. Even when fire is to burn, the thing subjected to it may not be
destroyed, but rendered more valuable. Were not some things under
the law purified by passing through fire? And when Christians are im-
mersed in the fire of affliction, they are not destroyed ; they lose nothing
but their dross.
3. I care not what the writer may understand by the baptism of fire.
Let it be the fire of persecution, of affliction, even of hell, the emblem is
suitable. Immersion in fire is intelligible, both literally and figuratively.
" The words of John," says the writer, " were addressed to an assem-
bly of those who would believe in Christ, and of those who would reject
him. It was not true that all would be baptized with a sacred influence.
It is more likely, therefore, that the two baptisms had a corresponding
reference to the two classes of which his audience, and the whole Jewish
nation, consisted, than that both should relate to the one smaller portion."
334 REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE.
1. John's saying, I baptize you, addressing the people in genera], did
not imply either that he baptized the whole nation, or the whole of the
present audience. Therefore, when he says of Jesus, he shall baptize
you, it is not implied that Jesus baptized, in any sense, either the whole
Jewish nation, or the whole of John's present audience.
2. This phraseology imports merely that John baptized those of the
Jews who became his disciples; therefore the same phraseology implies
when spoken of Jesus, that he baptized those among the Jews who
became his disciples. This corresponds both with fact and with phra-
seology.
3. The author's exposition is inconsistent with itself. He makes
Christ's baptism one baptism, and two baptisms. If it refers to the
whole nation, purified by the destruction of his enemies, it includes
both classes. In this light, it has no reference to baptism in any view.
Baptism does not represent the purification of the Jewish nation, nor
of any nation ; but the purification of sinners individually, from their
own sins.
If there are two baptisms, one for one class, and another for another,
then how can it be the one baptism that purifies the nation 1 The class
that has the baptism of this sacred influence, has not the baptism of fire;
yet it is the baptism of fire that separates the pure from the impure ; and
both must be immersed in the trying fire.
4. There are not two classes in these baptisms. The baptism of the
Spirit, and the baptism of fire, belong to the same persons. " He shall
baptize you in the Holy Spirit and fire." Every person who has the one
baptism, has the other.
" The collecting the wicked," says the writer, " and the burning of
the chaff, are described as the purifying of the threshing-floor." Even
this is not a correct explanation of the figure. It is the separation of
the chaff from the wheat ; not the collecting of the wheat, and the burn-
ing of the chaff, that is the purification. The collecting of the wheat,
and the burning of the chaff, do not take place even at the same time
with this purification. But what, has this figure to do with baptism ?
The separation of Israel after the spirit, from Israel after the flesh, was
a purging of the threshing-floor ; but this is quite a different purifica-
tion from that which is represented by the ordinance of Christ. So far
from being the baptism of Christ, this purification has not the same
emblem with the baptism of Christ. Besides, it is not the destruction
of the unbelieving Israelites that is the purification of the figure.
There is nothing right in this explication of the figurative language of
John the Baptist. The purgation of the nation might have taken place,
had there been no such ordinance as baptism ; and baptism would have
been the same, had Israel been all believers, and needed no national
purgation.
" The baptism of a number of persons," he continues, " is confined
to the cleansing of a threshing-floor." Now where is the comparison
to be found? The baptism of a number of persons is not compared
to a threshing-floor. Nothing like this is said. The separation of the
natural and spiritual Israel, is compared to the winnowing of grain;
REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. 335
but there is no comparison at all between baptism and the cleansing of
a threshing-floor. It is astonishing that writers will leave themselves
open to detection and rebuke, by such reckless assertions. Would any
lawyer, even on a case of life and death, put it in the power of his
opponent, to charge him with so serious a misrepresentation, in reason-
ing from a written document? I would let the honour of revelation
itself suffer, rather than undertake to protect it by such an asseveration.
Let baptism be reasoned out of the world, rather than uphold it by such
reasons.
The question put to John, has no reference either to the mode or to
the nature of the ordinance. Whatever had been the thing done by
him, which was not in obedience to the ceremonial law, would equally
have given occasion to the question. They questioned his authority,
on the ground that he was not one of the persons whom they expected.
Had he been such a person, whether he dipped, or sprinkled, or poured,
would never have been questioned. If he was not one of the persons
expected, why did he introduce among the Jews anything not enjoined
by the law of Moses ?
" But dipping the multitudes into the Jordan," says he, " would be an
act of itself requiring explanation." If the person were recognised or
commissioned by God, would his mode of practising a rite be questioned?
If he were not recognised, not the mode of the rite, but the rite itself,
would be questioned.
The difficulty found in the number baptized by John, is not worthy
of a moment's consideration. It is capable of many solutions.
1. If John requires more time for his work, I shall lengthen his com-
mission. How long he entered on his work before our Lord entered on
his, I will allow nothing but inspiration to determine. I care nothing
for human conjectures and probabilities.
2. There is no necessity to suppose that John baptized all personally.
He might have employed the instrumentality of others along with him-
self. Indeed, without any reference to the difficulty, I perceive no rea-
son to believe that John declined assistance in the work of baptism.
Christ's baptism is surely equally important : Christ baptized none ; Paul
baptized but few; and if the converts made by the brethren scattered
by the persecution, at the death of Stephen, were baptized at all, they
must have been baptized by unofficial brethren. That Puseyism, which
is now so general, even among dissenters, has not a vestige of authority
in the practice of the first churches. Every man has a right to preach
the Gospel, which is a higher privilege than baptizing; and every Chris-
tian man has a right to baptize believers.
This writer, indeed, tells us that, " It should be remarked that it is
expressly stated, that the people were all baptized by him : not by his
disciples." No such thing is expressly stated. Where is it expressly
stated, "not by his disciples?" I am astonished at such assertions.
We are told that " Herod laid hold of John, and bound him, and put
him in prison." Did Herod do this himself? Did he perform the
work of a constable ? The conversation of every hour exemplifies this
phraseology.
336 REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE.
3. It is not necessary that the number of those baptized by John
should be so great, as stated by this writer. The language of hyperbole
is not capable of arithmetical calculation. The writer, with great can-
dour, admits that the language " need not be understood as meaning
every individual : but it must be interpreted in reference to the larger
portion of the population." Now, if the bankrupt put himself into my
hands, I will oblige the creditor to compound for a much smaller sum.
This is a new law of hyperbole, Where is it found? On what is it
grounded ? It is a mere figment, unauthorised by any principle. To
justify a hyperbole, I maintain, it is not necessary that truth should
extend to the larger portion. When the evangelist says, " And there are
also many other things which Jesus did ; the which, if they should be
written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain
the books that should be written," must fact extend to the larger portion
of the literal amount?
4. Every hyperbole must be limited by impossibility ; it cannot, in
any case, be extended beyond what is possible. It cannot oblige John,
then, to baptize in a certain time, more than can in that time be baptized.
5. Were the thing asserted admitted, according to the modal meaning
of the word, to be impossible, to assign another meaning, not in proof,
would not relieve Christians from the difficulty. The infidel might justly
object to such a solution. " I deny," he might say, " that the word has
the meaning that you allege. The assertion, then, is a falsehood."
This objection, then, is the objection of an infidel. Were it a just
objection, it would not give the word another meaning. It bears on the
truth or falsehood of the Scriptures, not on their interpretation. Should
a man report that in Roman Catholic chapels, all the people are immersed;
and when challenged, should defend himself by saying, that he meant
that they were sprinkled with holy water; would his interpretation
relieve him from the charge of falsehood ? And immerse does not more
uniformly signify clip in English, than does baptizo in Greek. The
evangelist, then, cannot be justified by such interpretation. If John did
not immerse his disciples, the narrative of the evangelist is false.
6. At this distance of time there may be in Scripture records many
difficulties apparently incapable of solution, that after all may be per-
fectly true. We never give up the truth of the Scriptures for such diffi-
culties, and we never solve them by denying the authenticated meaning
of words.
7. The great difficulty in performing immersion is altogether un-
founded. Any way of putting the person under water is equally an
immersion, and equally an emblem of the death, burial, and resurrection
of Christ and his people with him. There is no need of dramatic
representation. Indeed there is no uniform way of burial. There can
be, then, no propriety in endeavouring to imitate the custom of any
nation in committing the body to the earth. Whether the person is
immersed on his back, or his face, or by sinking directly downwards, is
perfectly the same as to baptism. The easiest way is preferable ; and
in deep water to press the person down, or forwards, may be done with
the greatest convenience. Instead of keeping John the Baptist ten hours
REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. 337
every day in the water, I will not oblige him to go into the water at all :
he mio-ht have stood on the brink. Philip and the eunuch, indeed,
went both into the water, and in many cases this may be still necessary ;
but it is not essential to the ordinance of baptism. This case, however,
has, in the Divine wisdom, been recorded to confound obstinacy.
With respect to delicacy, it would be easy from the law of Moses to
make a comparison with this rite ; but I do not design to defend an
ordinance of God from such a charge. I prove God's law from his own
word. He who charges it with indelicacy, charges God himself.
The author thinks that an immersion with garments on is inconsistent
with the idea of purification. Does he forget that in their purifications,
the Jews were sprinkled on their garments? Is he not aware that
Josephus represents the female Essenes as bathing with their garments
on ; and the males as covered with a veil or girdle round the waist ?
Does not Herodotus represent the Egyptian, after touching a swine, as
plunging immediately into a river with his garments on ? Do not
Roman Catholics continually purify by sprinkling on the people with
their garments on?
The writer has an argument from the probable want of conveniences
for immersion. Does he really think that the Scripture history must
give an account of such things ? Must we go back eighteen centuries
to find a change of raiment, &c. ? We have nothing to do with inquiries
of this kind. I prove that they were immersed, — I care not from what
sources they had suitable conveniences. Would any one think of making
such an objection, if the narrative respected even modern times, and
asserted immersion?
Section VII. — Prepositions Construed with the Verb. — The
author comes next to the consideration of the prepositions construed with
this verb. He tells us, "that, according to the testimony of most critics,
en has the signification of at, and apo offro?n. Apo rarely has the sense
of out of, but en very frequently has the sense of in. A few instances of
the signification of at and from are given below."
Whatever may be the testimony of qritics, I deny that en ever signifies
at ; and it never has been argued by me that in the cases that refer to
baptism, apo must signify out of When the writer, then, grants that
the preposition rarely has this signification, he grants me more than
I will accept. I deny that it ever signifies out of I shall not force the
word to do more for me than what it can do honestly. But let us first
attend to the preposition en. In a note the writer gives us a number of
examples, in which he alleges that it signifies at. Now I dispute this
with respect to every instance that he has alleged. En in Greek no
more signifies at, than does in English the preposition in. We can as
often convert in and at as the Greeks could en and para, or epi. We
may often say indifferently, at a place or in a place ; but this does not
imply that in such cases in signifies at, or that at signifies in. The pre-
positions have always their own characteristic meaning ; while in cases
innumerable they may be substituted for each other.
The first instance which he alleges of en in the sense of at, is in the
43
338 REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE.
phrase en Troie, which occurs several times in Homer. At Troy, says
the writer, — in Troy, say I. But I shall be asked, How was it in Troy ?
Did they fight within the walls of the city ? No, but every one who
knows anything of such matters, knows, that the district around a city
was always spoken of by the name of the city. The name of the city
was given to the whole adjoining country. I can demonstrate this, even
with respect to this instance, as clearly as ever a mathematical proposi-
tion was demonstrated. Does not Homer call the city " the fertile
Troy ¥' Was it within the walls that it was fertile ? Was it not the
country about the city that was fertile? The Grecian heroes, then, who
fell near wind-swept Ilium, fell in Troy. Now this criticism will apply
to his examples from every city.
The next example is from Homer also— en proto rumo, literally, " in
the first pole." The place where the pole of the chariot snapped, was in
the first part of it. I think the phraseology implies that there were two
poles joined together, as the topmast is joined to the mainmast of a ship,
or like the different parts of a fishing rod. But whatever may be in this,
it is most certain that it is in the first pole that the chariot is said to have
been broken. Besides, it must necessarily have been within the pole that
it was broken. Could the pole be broken outside the pole? It is in the
first pole, not at the first pole. At the first pole would be near the first
pole, and would be in the second pole, or second part of the pole.
He gives another example from Homer — the spear was broken — -eni
kaulo, at the top. At the tip, or at the point, would be a very good trans-
lation, according to our idiom. But kaulos does not signify top; it
denotes the whole blade, or metal part of the spear, like the top of a
halbert. Now it was not at this part, but in this part, that the weapon
broke. The breach may have been in any part of the blade, from the
utmost extremity of the point to the wooden shaft. The preposition is
used altogether in its own primary meaning.
The next instance is the ambuscade represented on the shield of
Achilles. The ambuscade is represented as placed en potomo, " at the
river," says the writer, — in the river, say I. It was within the banks of
the river that the ambuscade lodged. This is a much better place for an
ambuscade than the bank of a river, — especially as they lay in wait for
the cattle which were driven to drink at that place. Cowper and other
translators have entirely missed the meaning of this passage. The
ambuscade was not on the banks of the river, but within the banks.
Accordingly we find that the ensuing battle, in driving away the cattle,
is not en potomo, but para ochthas, — not in the river, but at the banks
of the river. That an ambush should be laid in such a place, will not
startle any one who considers the account given by Ulysses, of an am-
buscade in which he was concerned at Troy : —
" Approaching to the city's lofty wall
Through the thick bushes and the reeds that girt
The bulwarks, down we lay, flat in the marsh,
Under our arms. Then, Boreas, blowing loud,
A rueful night came on, frosty and charged
With snow that blanched us thick as morning rime,
And every shield with ice was crystall'd o'er."— Cowper.
REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. 339
The next passage cited by the author is that which in the Iliad
represents the stopping of the mules and horses of Priam to drink en
potomo — in the river, as he went to the Grecian camp to redeem the body
of Hector. The preposition has here strictly its usual meaning — it was
in the river that the horses drank. According to our idiom we may
say either at the river, or in the river ; but in the river is the idiom of
the original, and it is literal fact.
The passage next cited by the author is that which refers to Ulysses
escaped from shipwreck, and lying on the bank of a river. He has
only the choice whether to watch all the rueful night en potomo — in the
river, or to ascend the acclivity. But why in the river ? Is he not out
of the river ? Why does he suppose a necessity of going into it again ?
The reason is obvious. If he does not choose to ascend the acclivity
and go into the wood for shelter, and make a leafy couch, he must lodge
in the river under the cover of its banks. It is not at the river, but in
the river that he supposes himself to watch. On the bank he could
have no shelter ; in the river he would have the shelter of the bank.
He might be in the river, yet not in the water : all within the banks is
the river.
The daughter of the king of Phseacia is said to have stopped her car,
en prothuroisi, in the vestibule. The word includes the whole court be-
fore the gate. It is not at, but in.
The next instance brought forward by this writer to prove that en
sometimes signifies at, is en prochoes potomou, translated by him, "At
the mouth of the river." But it is better translated by Cowper, " Within
the eddy-whirling river's mouth."
The next is from Herodotus, translated by this writer, " A city at
the Euxine sea." But this translation misses the whole spirit of the
phrase. The city is said en Euxino ponto matista kakeimenon, the city
Jay almost, or very much, in the Euxine sea.
The sea-fight en Krupo, in Cyprus, is to be understood like the
phrase, " in Troy." The sea about Cyprus may be called Cyprus. We
could employ the same idiom. In like manner, the Greeks are said to
conquer the Persians in Salamis. Overthrown in Drebescus — not at
Drebescus ; though our idiom may prefer this in translation. The use
of the word in reference to towns and islands may be, in every instance,
accounted for by what has been observed with respect to the use of the
name of the city of Troy. The example from Xenophon, in the Euxine
sea, may be accounted for on the same principle with that from Hero-
dotus. Nothing is more common than to speak of a town situated in a
bason of the sea, as lying in the sea. A promontory is even said to run
into the sea. Homer speaks of the tomb of Achilles as prochouse, on
a tall promontory, shooting far into the spacious Hellespont. Odys.
xxiv. 82.
Why does he say at Gilgal, 1 Sam. xv. 4 ? Is it not in Gilgal ? Does
not our version render it, in Telaim ? Why does he say at the brook,
verse 5? What forbids the place of the ambush to be in the brook?
Why, at the brook, 1 Kings xvii. 5? Could not the prophet take up
his residence within the banks of the brook ? Why, at the corners of
340 REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE.
the streets, Matt. vii. 5? Does ever our idiom forbid in the corner of
the streets? Why, tower at Siloam, Luke xiii. 4? What objection
can be to in Siloam? Why, at the treasury, John viii. 20? Why
not, in the treasury ? On the right hand is as suitable to our idiom as
at the right hand. In the right hand, is in the region or place to the
right.
Schleusner adds other examples of this signification, which are not
more to the purpose. Sta)iding in the holy place, Matt. xxiv. 15, he
understands as referring to the Roman army brought forward to the
city and temple; but this conceit deserves no attention. Whatever
may be the holy place referred to, the thing referred to is represented
as standing in it. In the temple, John x. 23, he understands, nigh the
temple, namely, in the porch of Solomon. But this whim is not only
wanton, but absurd. The porch of Solomon is here considered as a
part of the temple. Jesus walked in the temple, in that part of it called
Solomon's porch.
In short, though this preposition may, according to our idiom, be
frequently translated at, such cases are always capable of analysis
according to the proper meaning. When there is latitude in any phrase
in which this preposition is used, the latitude is always in the regimen.
This is a point which all the grammarians seem to have overlooked.
But even where lexicographers and grammarians allege at as one of
its primary meanings, they never apply it, when the common meaning
will serve ; it is reserved for cases which are supposed not to admit the
strict signification of the word. This forms no apology for those who
apply it in the exigency of a favourite cause, when the usual meaning
would apply. Does any one who deserves the name of a lexicographer
or grammarian, understand en as signifying at in reference to the phrase
en lordane? Here the preposition is not only capable of its primary
meaning, but it is in this sense that it is always construed with the verb
in question. Why should it be otherwise in this instance ?
The writer proceeds next to give some examples in which the prepo-
sition elc signifies not out of, but from. He should understand that in
this controversy we are concerned with no examples except such as
imply the motion of an object from one place to another. Now, of such
cases, I still maintain what I taught on this subject from the beginning,
that there is no instance in which the preposition signifies from~— it
always means out of. In Acts viii. 39, the phrase is capable of no
translation but out of the water, and necessarily implies that they were
in the water.
But though it does not concern this controversy, I dispute the philo-
logy of this writer, in every instance which he has alleged. Even in
the first example, eh has not the sense of from. "He cut the hairs
out of the heads of the lambs" is the Greek idiom, which we would
express by from. Every sound philologist, in expounding the Greek
phrase, would observe that out of is the exact meaning of the original.
He would also show, that this is as agreeable to philosophical principle
as our idiom from. Out of respects exterior space considered horizon-
tally, as well as contrasted with interior. When we say a man comes
REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. 341
down out of the hill, we do not mean that he was in the bowels of the
earth. Just so with the hairs out of the heads of the lambs. All the hair
of the heads of the lambs was not cut, but some of it was cut out of the
remainder. Indeed, to cut from the head is as difficult in a philosophical
analysis. From respects not the cutting, for that was at the head ; but
the removing of it after the cutting. It was cut at the head, and then
removed from the head.
Though I am going farther than the cause I have undertaken requires,
yet I the more willingly follow the writer here, for the sake of pointing
out to my readers the source of much false criticism, which affects every
subject. Critics usually proceed upon the principle, that the phrase
which our idiom requires in a translation, corresponds exactly to the
idiom of the original. But idioms are really different, so that this can-
not be the case. An idiomatic phrase in one language cannot be exactly
rendered by an idiomatic phrase in another ; and neither of them ought
to be obliged to conform to the other. We may say, to cut from, when
the Greeks would have said, to cut out of; but we are not on that
account to explain out of as signifying from, more than we are to explain
from by out of. A Greek, for instance, criticising on the principle of
this writer, in comparing the English translation with the original,
would say, " Here from signifies not apo, but ek — it is not from the
head, but out of the head." Why should he say sol Because he
makes the English idiom conform to the Greek, just as this writer
makes the Greek idiom conform to the English. Now neither idiom
conforms to the other ; each of them explains on a different principle,
and has a different signification, while they both are fitted to fill the
same place.
This is illustrated by the next example alleged by this writer. We
say, from head to foot ; but the Greek says, out of the head into or unto
the feet. Homer represents one of his slain heroes as lying on the field,
covered with dust and filth, ek kephales. Now, we translate this from
his head; and from this the writer argues, that the preposition signifies
not out of, but from. This I maintain is not only false as to this instance,
but is founded on the false principle above explained. It obliges the
idiom of one language to conform to that of another, when each of them
has a distinct meaning, while they are fitted to fill the same place in
their respective languages. A Greek might as well argue from this ex-
ample, that from signifies out of, as this writer argues, that ek signifies
from. Neither idiom is to conform to the other, while each of them
must be used in such cases for the other in translation. And with re-
spect to the philosophy of the English and the Greek idioms, the latter
is, in this instance, the most exact. From head to feet exactly begins at
the head, without including any part of it; out of commences within
the head. The Greek idiom covers the fallen hero, head and feet ; our
idiom literally leaves head and feet uncovered.
The phrase ek genees, we translate according to our idiom, from his
birth, but it is in Greek idiom out of his birth. The disease commenced
within the period mentioned. The Greek idiom is more philosophical
than ours. The phrase ex hou cgenonto Athcnaloi, is literally, " out of
342 REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE.
the time the Athenians existed." The point of time referred to is any
point within the period. The Greek idiom is here also more philoso-
phical than ours. Such examples prove a different idiom, not that the
preposition in the one language is the exact equivalent of the other.
When a mountain is said to extend out of one sea into another, its
extremities are supposed to reach into each sea. Though we should say
from sea to sea, this does not imply that the Greek phrase is exactly
equivalent. We would say, from Byzantium to Heraclea; the Greeks
said, out of Byzantium into Heraclea. We commence the distance at
the town, the Greeks commence it within the town. This does not im-
ply that the English preposition is the exact translation of the Greek. In
the same way, with respect to what the writer translates, "from the dis-
tant streams of Ethiopia." "Go from my presence;" the Greek is, "Go
out of my presence." And our idiom will bear a literal translation.
"They descended from the hill;" Greek, "out of the hill." They
were within the horizontal space called the hill. The Greek is more
philosophically exact. " Gather figs from thorns;" Greek, out of thorns.
Is it not literally out of the bush that they were gathered? A Greek,
considering from as the translation of the preposition in this phrase,
agreeably to this writer's philology, might allege, that the English pre-
position from here signifies out of "A hair from your head ;" Greek,
" a hair out of your head." And we can say the same thing. Do we
not say, that " She tore the hair out of her head 1" " Hanging from his
hand ;" Greek, " out of Iris hand." The Greek is philosophical, the
English is not. The hanging object is partly within the hand. Is it
like a philologist to argue from different idioms, that the original must
conform to the translation? " Ships come from Tiberias;" Greek, " out
of Tiberias." "I come from God;" Greek, "out of God." "He
arose from supper ;" Greek, " out of supper." He rose and came out
of the place in which he had supped. "From the chief priests ;" Greek,
" out of the chief priests." The officers referred to were those who
were in attendance on the chief priests. " His chains fell from his
hands;" Greek, "out of his hands." The chain must have been fastened
somewhere within the part of the body which the word hand designates.
An antiquarian, instead of making the Greek idiom conform to the
English, would here gain some information with respect to the chain-
ing of criminals. " They cast four anchors from the stern ;" Greek, " out
of the stern." And our idiom would exactly translate the Greek. " We
have an altar from which they have no right to eat ;" Greek, " out of
which." And is it not within the table that the meat is placed for eat-
ing ? Must it not, then, be out of the table that they are supposed to
take the food laid on it? Every example, then, of this kind, I can
easily solve, on philosophical principles, in perfect uniformity with the
proper meaning of this preposition. Even the secondary meanings of
the preposition, which have no respect to either motion or place, may
generally, with ease, be reduced to the primary meaning. An effect,
for instance, is supposed to proceed out of its cause, and the thing
formed is supposed to proceed out of the matter of which it is formed.
But, in reference to the present controversy, I have nothing to do with
REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. 343
any examples, except such as express the motion of an object from
one place to another. The other examples I have noticed for the sake
of overturning a false principle of interpretation, namely, the assumption
that the idiom of our language must be a perfect equivalent to every
idiom which it translates.
The author grants that apo rarely signifies out of. But I will not
avail myself of this admission, because it admits what is not true. Had
he said that apo is sometimes used where ek is more usual, or that there
are cases in which either may be used, I would unite in the affirmation.
But in all such cases each of the prepositions has still its own peculiar
meaning. I may say, I came from town, or out of town. Does this
imply that from and out of are perfectly equivalent in any instance in
English? Perfectly the same is the case, when apo and ek may be sub-
stituted for one another. Grammarians and lexicographers, as far as I
have observed, are far from being decisive authorities for secondary
meaning. Schleusner gives dum, whilst, as one of the secondary mean-
ings of the preposition en ; and si, if, for another. The preposition never
has any appearance of such signification. It is the multiplication of
meanings, grounded on loose views of the laws of language, that has
enabled controversialists to prove anything they choose to undertake.
According to this way of assigning meanings to words, en may be said
to signify the very opposite of its own signification. The signification
of ek may be given to en, and that of en to the opposite ek. The Greeks
speak of drinking in a cup, and out of a cup. Here, then, we may say
that ek signifies en, and en signifies out of. But the two Greek phrases
do not express the same idea, though they may be used for the same
actions. In the one case the drinking refers to the liquor as contained
within the cup, in the other to the liquor as proceeding out of the cup.
Now if two so different phrases are used for the same action in the same
language, in accordance with the distinctive meaning of the words,
much more may this be the case with respect to two idioms of different
languages employed to express the same thing.
I have met the encounter of Socinians, who, without the least scruple,
degraded anything from the Scriptures which they could not manage to
their satisfaction. But criticism so licentious as that which is employed
to evade the mode of this ordinance, I have never witnessed in the most
reckless Socinian. The word itself is so obviously univocal, that an
instance of its use cannot be produced, irreconcilable with this view ;
yet a meaning is arbitrarily assigned to it, which it cannot, in a single
instance, be proved to have, on the ground of difficulties and impossi-
bilities with respect to its established meaning. The prepositions en
and ek, which are quite decisive in their testimony, have been forced
to become lax, that their testimony on this subject may be evaded. But
even if the authority of lexicographers is relied on as asserting a rare
use, why should a rare use be forced on any of the words in this
situation? Why should a rare use be forced on both of them? Why
should they have this rare meaning in combination with a word which
usually signifies immersion, and in combination with what they usually
signify, in and out of? Why should there be supposed such a wicked
344 REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE.
conspiracy in all the words in combination, to deceive the reader by
leaving their usual meaning, and assuming a rare meaning?
In the following extract we have one of the most astonishing declara-
tions that I ever saw on paper from the hand of a disciple of Christ.
"If it were asserted," says the writer, "that persons went into the
water, and came out of it, it could not be justly inferred that they went
in to be dipped. Where shoes were not worn, the necessity of frequently
washing the feet, might naturally make that a part of a ceremonial or
symbolical washing. It was so used by our Lord when he washed his
disciples' feet. In eastern countries it is common to walk into the
stream to wash their feet." If any man who trembles at the word of
God, and thirsts for the knowledge of it as to this ordinance, does not
see the condemnation of this observation in its very face, I should never
think of presenting him with evidence. I cannot conceive how it can
satisfy any conscience. If in performing the ordinance of baptism, we
have both the baptizer and the baptized in the water, the man who
cannot see proof in this that there was an immersion in the ordinance,
appears to me to be far beyond the reach of evidence. Jesus raised the
dead, and did not convince his enemies. It is very true that persons
may go into the water to wash their feet, and for a thousand other pur-
poses. But here the going into the water was for the purpose of the
baptism. But is any washing of the feet mentioned ? Baptism is the
only thing that can here be the reason of their going into the water.
But the washing of the feet is no part of the ceremonial, because it is
neither here nor any where else enjoined as a part of the ceremonial of
baptism. Should it, however, have been a part of the ceremonial of
baptism, it must still be a part of the ceremonial. Can either Pope or
Puseyite abrogate what Christ has made a part, a symbolical part of this
ordinance ? Such an argument has no force on my conscience. I am
willing to observe this ordinance in any way that can be proved to be
the original mode ; but I could not think of looking Jesus Christ, my
Master, in the face, and say to him at the same time, that I am satisfied
with this argument. If it really convinces any of Christ's disciples, I
leave them to the judgment of Christ.
What has the washing of the feet of the disciples to do with this subject?
Was this connected with baptism? Was this a part of any ceremonial ?
Was it not a particular symbolical action to represent a general prin-
ciple? Besides, did our Lord take the disciples to a river in order to
wash their feet? Can such reasoning merit any other denomination
than that of evasion, as weak as it is wicked? If it is lawful, no ordi-
nance or doctrine of Christ could afford sufficient proof. What proof
would satisfy the mind that can allow itself to rest on such arguments?
Again and again we demand, what is wanting to the proof that baptism
is immersion ? Is there any more definite word to denote immersion ?
Are there any more definite prepositions to denote, in, into, and out of?
Can it be shown with respect to any word in the Greek language, that
there are more numerous and decided proofs of its meaning, than those
exhibited in proof of the meaning of the word in question?
To the argument from John iii. 23, the author replies: "First, that
REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. 345
the name Enon, which means the wefts, and also the nature of the country,
favour the opinion that polla hudata denotes many streams, rather than
one large connexion of water." Let the origin of the name be what
he alleo-es, it bears not his conclusion. All the springs might unite in
forming one collection.
His second reason is, " That the water was necessary, not for bap-
tizing, but for drinking, ordinary washings, cooking, &c." — necessary
not only for men, but for asses and camels. " The statement," he says,
" that John was ■preaching at Enon, because there was abundance of
water there, would be perfectly proper."
On this I observe, 1. Not a single well — not a single bowl of water
was necessary for preaching. Had the whole of Judea been present at
one sermon, there was no absolute need for a drop of water. Our
opponents seem to think that the people who attended John, encamped,
and remained with him for a considerable time. There is no reason to
believe that they remained with him a single night; there was no neces-
sity to remain a moment after they were baptized. As for the asses
and camels, they exist only in the imagination ; they might as well
allege that the people came to John in steam carriages. We know that
the people followed our Lord on foot. But had as many asses and camels
attended John as were possessed by Job in the land of Uz, there was no
necessity for a single fountain ; they could have watered by the way.
Every candid person must perceive that these are forced reasons ; they
never would suggest themselves to any one who had not a purpose to
serve by them.
2. Jesus preached every where without any respect to the convenience
of water, and to greater multitudes than came to John. When they
came to Jesus to the most distant places without a supply of food, it is
evident that they did not intend to make a long stay. Why should they
stay longer with John? Jesus usually dismissed the multitudes in time
to go to their lodgings ; and on an occasion of staying later than usual,
it was food, not water, that they required. John's peculiar work was
baptizing, and for that purpose he frequented such places as afforded
the best facilities for performing immersion with convenience. It could
not then be said that John was preaching at Enon on account of the
water, because preaching does not need water.
3. The use of the water here is not left to conjecture ; it is specifically
mentioned : it was for the very purpose of baptism. It is added, also,
by the evangelist, " and they came and were baptized." Here their
coming was not for the purpose of hearing, but of being baptized. Shall
we, then, overlook the reasons which the Holy Spirit alleges, and allege
reasons from our own fancy ? Were this a point of heathen antiquity,
there never would have been a question on the subject. Ah, my
brethren, why will you, by your traditions, make void the word of God ?
With respect to the words in the original, much controversy has taken
place whether they ought to be translated much water or many waters.
Either of these will serve my purpose well enough. Neither much water
nor many waters could be necessary for either preaching or sprinkling.
The argument alleged by Baptists from the performance at rivers, the
44
346 REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE.
author answers in a very strange way. " First," says he, " that the use
of running water was expressly enjoined in the law for the purifications
performed by sprinkling, &c." What has this to do with Christian
baptism? Are we to be guided in the ordinances of Christ by Jewish
rites? Is it not monstrous to allege that it was the practice, both among
Jews and other nations, to go to large collections of water, such as rivers
in the sea, to observe purifications which needed very ^ittle water?
Are gross superstitions to be a model for Christ's ordinance ? If
the author chooses to imitate either Jewish or heathen superstitions,
let him follow his guide ; but let him not allege these as a model for
Christian baptism. We have nothing to do even with the law of Moses.
Yet even the Mosaic law that required running, that is, spring water,
did not require to perform the rite either at the river or at the fountain.
Is it possible that this writer can allege that the inspired messengers of
God practised baptism as a sprinkling in the neighbourhood of rivers,
from a view of the sacredness of the place ? No wonder that the Oxford
divines are paving a holy way to the altar, when the English Inde-
pendents speak of rivers as sacred places for the performance of sacred
sprinklings on their banks. Why not come to Lough Dergh, where they
can be made drunk with sanctity?
But if the banks of rivers were at first chosen by the inspired servants
of Jesus for the performance of sprinkling in this instance, why is not
this still observed ? I have never heard that the London Independents
go even to Old Thames to perform their sprinklings on its banks. I
declare solemnly that if I met this allegation in a detached form and
unauthenticated, I should fear to ascribe it to any friend of infant
sprinkling ; I should strongly suspect that it was to expose the cause
that it pretended to defend. It is Popery and Puseyism to suppose that
any place on earth is more holy than another.
If ever perverseness was perverse, it is here. If we drag them down
to the water, they will do nothing but sprinkle on the banks from their
view of the sacredness of the place : and if we force them even into the
water, they will do nothing but ceremonially wash their feet. Can
anything be more calumnious with respect to the kingdom of Christ,
than to allege that any part of the sacredness of an ordinance should
consist in the place where it is performed? Jerusalem itself is not
more holy than Mount Gerizim.
Section VIII. — The author makes some observations on the difference
between baptisma and baptismos. There is a difference in words of this
different formation; and the constant use of the former for the ordinance
of Christ, shows that the Scriptures recognise the difference. But this
writer has not been so fortunate as to hit the difference in the centre of
the mark : he has hardly struck the hill on which the target is fixed.
With respect to baptisma, he says that this form " indicates that its
signification is some effect." It does not designate an effect. Baptisma.
is not the effect produced by baptismos ; it is the rite performed by this
act. "The two words," he says, "differ in their meaning, as do the
English words, an immersing, an immersion, a purifying, a purification/'
REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. 347
The words, I maintain, do not differ as the English words referred to.
Immersion, instead of corresponding to baptisma, corresponds to bap-
tismos. It is for want of an appropriate English formation that immer-
sion is used as the translation of baptisma; and when the participle is
used as a substantive, it can translate baptisma. If the rite is spoken of
by the word dip, as we have no diption, we must say dipping. We have
no word to correspond to baptisma, whatever may be the mode or the
nature of the ordinance. Sprinkling is a similar formation to dipping.
Perfusion would correspond to baptismos, not to baptisma. Purification
itself designates the act as well as does immersion. The complaint
against the one word stands equally against the other : immersion is the
act of immersing, and for want of an appropriate formation, we must
apply to the rite the word that denotes the act. And if the rite should
be called purification, the same process takes place. No philologist
would bring such a complaint against the word immersion as the repre-
sentative of baptisma.
It may be observed also, that though in this instance the Greek
language affords us a distinct formation for the rite, yet it does not so
in all cases. Besides, even in that language, which has the advantage
of having one formation for the act, and another for the rite, the rite
may be designated by the formation that signifies the act. Josephus
employs baptismos, the word that signifies the act for the rite, in refer-
ence to the baptism of John.
But were it a fact, that the formation of the word immersion is not an
adequate representative of the Greek formation, and that the term
purification were free from this objection, what would this prove?
Nothing to the purpose : it would affect only the English term, and not
the meaning of the Greek word. It would prove the poverty of our
language, and its inadequateness to translate the Greek, but would not
in the slightest degree affect the proof about the meaning of the word.
" The difference," says the writer, " between baptismos and baptisma
is, that the former denotes an act that is transient, the latter an effect for
a time permanent." How can this be, when Josephus employs baptismos
where the other form is used in the New Testament, and by the Greek
Christians? Was not Christ's baptism as permanent as that of John?
Was not John's as transient as that of Christ? But baptisma is not
an effect either permanent or transient — it is the rite. Immersion also,
is not an effect either transient or permanent, but an act, or a rite.
Immersing and immersion do not differ as to permanency.
" If the subject," he tells us, " were left for a while in the water, then
the effect would be rightly called an immersion." What sort of philology
is this? Is not the immersion the act of immersing? What has it to
do with the length of time that the subject continues in the state of
immersion ? The effect of immersing is not immersion. The effect of
immersion must be something of which immersion is the cause. How
can he say that immersion applies to the effect of a continuation in the
state of immersion, when every one knows that we apply the word
immerse to the most transient act, as well as to cases in which the sub-
ject continues in a state of immersion ? The word has nothing to do
348 REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE.
with the effect produced by it, or the state of the thing immersed. " The
sense of purifying," he continues, " agrees with the peculiarity of sense
belonging to baptismos ; and that of purification, with the peculiarity
of sense belonging to baptis?na." Purification corresponds both to bap-
tismos and baptisma. We have no other word for the rite of purification,
but that which signifies the act.
" When it is said that the Pharisees and Sadducees came to his bap-
tism," says the writer, " reference obviously is made to what he did.
But in other places it appears, that this word is used, not for what he
did, but for what he taught." Can a word ever be used without a
reference to the thing signified by it? What is the thing signified
by the word baptism? Is it the name of the rite? If it is the name of
the rite, can the name be used without reference to the rite? Even
if the name is purification, it must have a reference to the rite. The
author, if I can venture to expound his meaning, seems to think that the
word baptism is sometimes used not with reference to the rite, but to the
doctrine connected with the rite. It appears to me absurd, to suppose
that the name of a rite should be used without reference to the rite. But
as soon as a word is appropriated as the name of a rite, every thing
included in the rite will be referred to it under its appropriated name,
whatever the name may signify. The writer every where, seems not to
be aware of the nature and effects of grammatical appropriation. Are
not the doctrines implied in circumcision, referred to circumcision ?
Perfectly the same thing applies to every appropriated name. This
determines nothing as to the meaning of the name itself. Now we
are inquiring not about the doctrines implied in this rite, but about the
meaning of its name. Can anything, then, be more useless than the
assertion, that corporeal purification was not the great subject of John's
preaching ? What has this to do with the rite which he practised ? " The
great doctrine," he continues, " taught by him was, the necessity of
a spiritual purification." Well, does this say that the name of the rite
which he practised was spiritual purification 1 Does this forbid that
the name of the rite should be immersion ?
The writer brings out his point even by mathematical demonstration,
in the following words : " If baptism was the chief theme of John's
preaching, and it is so described, then, because repentance also was the
chief theme, baptism and repentance coincide." 1. Now I ask, what
does he understand by the word baptism here ? Is it the Christian
rite? If so, this rite is repentance and salvation. If it is not the
Christian rite, we have nothing to do with it in this controversy, for we
are inquiring about the Christian rite. 2. John did not preach repent-
ance as a baptism, nor baptism as a repentance ; but baptism as imply-
ing repentance. He preached the baptism of repentance. This shows
that baptism and repentance are different things. 3. How do baptism
and repentance coincide? It must be in a sense of baptism — which
excludes the ordinance of baptism, otherwise the rite is a part of
repentance. If it is in a sense that excludes the ordinance, then we have
nothing to do with it in that sense : our inquiry is about the meaning
of the word, as the name of the rite. If a person will give the name
REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. 349
of baptism to repentance, he must be left with other fanatics to enjoy his
own whim. 4. Repentance may be imported in a rite, though the name
of the ordinance may not be repentance. 5. Repentance and purification
are not the same thing, though they are essentially connected. If bap-
tism signifies purification, it does not signify repentance ; if it signifies
repentance, it cannot signify purification. 6. With much better reason
it might be said, that the words repentance and faith, and repentance
and sanctification, coincide : they all imply each other, yet they are all
different. But the word repentance, and the word baptism, do not coincide
in name, and they do not necessarily imply each other. Repentance may
exist without baptism, and baptism without repentance.
" Repentance," says the writer, " is not a dipping, nor an immersion,
but it is a purification." The words dipping, immersion, purification,
must be taken as the names of the rite, otherwise the observation is
nothing to the purpose. Now repentance is not a purification, as
that term is the name of a rite, more than it is immersion, as the name
of the same rite. " The phrase baptisma metanoias," says he, " might
mean either the corporeal baptism, connected with repentance, or the
spiritual baptism, consisting of repentance." 1. The phrase baptism of
repentance, most evidently means the rite which is performed on those
who profess repentance. No one can mistake this, who looks for truth.
But if any one will be ignorant, let him be ignorant. The baptisms
under the law were for ceremonial purifications ; but the baptism of
John, and of our Lord, imply spiritual purification in those who receive
them. 2. The writer makes repentance and spiritual baptism coincide;
the spiritual baptism, then, of repentance, is the repentance of repentance.
3. This exposition excludes the rite of baptism altogether from the
preaching of John. He preached only repentance, if the baptism of
repentance is nothing but repentance.
But even granting that the phrase " baptism of repentance" has no
reference to baptism as a rite, does this imply that the word baptism, in
reference to the rite, must signify purification, or that it cannot signify
immersion ? This has nothing to do with the question in any point of
view. "Apollos," he tells us, "taught diligently the things of the Lord,
being acquainted only with the baptism of John. If only acquainted
with the dipping of John, he would have been little fitted for the office
of a religious instructor." Would Apollos have been a more competent
religious instructor, on the supposition that the rite had been called pu-
rification ? Is it not evident that the word baptism here refers to the rite
of baptism, whatever may be the meaning of the word? But the writer,
as usual, errs from inattention to the effect of appropriation. The bap-
tism of John includes every thing included in John's commission, and
implied in the rite which he practised. Does not the apostle Paul speak
in the same way about preaching circumcision 1 The baptism of John
must surely be the baptism which John preached. The rite, then, must
be referred to, whatever may be its name.
Section IX. — Author's Explication of the Passages which re-
fer to Christian Baptism. — The author comes next to the examination
350 REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE.
of the passages which refer to Christian baptism. The first to which he
refers is John iii. 25, 26. " What is called a purifying in the twenty-fifth
verse, is called a baptizing in the twenty-sixth verse." The lesson which
I gave to President Beecher on this allegation, seems to have had its
proper effect on this writer ; for he grounds no argument for identity of
meaning on this fact. But he derives evidence from the passage on ano-
ther ground. " Neither in this passage," says he, " nor in one of all the
passages which mention Christian baptism, is the word construed with
the preposition in, or with any other word that accords with the sense
of dipping. In no single instance are we told that persons were baptized
into the water, which would be the proper phrase, if to baptize meant to
dip. The word is here used alone, and as many other passages, both the
noun and verb are similarly situated. From this, it is probable that the
object signified by them was commonly and properly regarded alone, and
was in some measure complete in itself."
It is to me astonishing, beyond what I can express, that any person
accustomed to reflect on language, were he even unable to read, should
make the observation with regard to the defect of the regimen of the
verb. Every ear is familiarly accustomed to such grammatical deficiency
of expression ; and every hearer and reader can instantaneously supply
the ellipsis : it is a common case with all grammatical appropriations.
The expression of the regimen would be quite useless. I have already,
again and again, illustrated this by examples ; and every hour's con-
versation will supply instances. Can we not say, "Was the child
sprinkled ?" Can we not say, " Was such a person immersed V Would
any child need the regimen to be expressed? Try the experiment on
an idiot, and I venture to say, he will not ask for the regimen of the
verb. Critics should be ashamed of having recourse to such philology.
Is it not strange that the ghost of our old friend, the word circumcision,
does not rise up to their imagination, and frighten them, when they
make such observations? Should a modern Jew be asked if he was
circumcised ; would he need the grammatical regimen to be expressed,
before he would answer ? It might as well be said that the English
word immerse cannot signify dip, because it is used in reference to
the ordinance, without any regimen. Let us try this criticism on a
sample of English. Let the critic be a foreigner, knowing the English
language through grammars and dictionaries, and determining meaning
according to the canons of this writer. Let the text be, Were you
immersed since you believed ? " Nothing," says the critic, " can be more
evident than that the word immerse cannot here signify dip, because
there is no regimen to the verb." With respect to the preposition eis,
I have shown that it is construed with the verb, with respect to John's
baptism ; and in this respect there can be no difference between the
word in reference to the baptism of John, and that of Christ. Besides,
it is used by the early Christians, which is as good an authority as to
syntax, as is the Scripture itself. Inspiration does not give law to
syntax, but must use the syntax of the language which it employs ;
otherwise it could not give a revelation. Besides, en is construed with
the verb, as well as eis, when immerse is spoken of; and in English,
REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. 351
we use in much more frequently than into. Indeed, when we wish
merely to designate the place of baptism, we always use in. — They were
baptized in the Thames. I might add, that the preposition eis is in the
Scriptures construed with the verb, in reference to Christian baptism ;
and as to the syntax, there is no difference whether the regimen be
water, or anything else. But I do not recognise the demand ; I will not
plead on the ground of its authority. A phrase might occur only once
in Scripture ; and on the ground of the author's criticism, it could not
have its common meaning, without alleging at least one instance of
every variety of its syntax. I denounce this canon as unsound and
unauthoritative.
But what does the writer mean, when he says that the object signified,
is regarded alone and complete in itself? Must not e-very active verb
have a regimen, either expressed or understood ? Purify must have its
regimen, as well as immerse : the thing or means used to effect purification
must be supplied, either in expression or by ellipsis. He says, indeed,
" the term to purify, exhibits a particular end, on which the mind
naturally rests, and from which accessory ideas are fitly removed." It
expresses purification ; but it expresses neither the end nor the means of
purification, more than does immerse. Whether the purification is for
the end of natural, emblematical, or spiritual cleansing ; and whether by
means of water, or fire, or sulphur, or anything else, deponent saith not.
" The term to dip," says he, " exhibits a general mode of acting, and
could not so well be used alone." Here, again, he overlooks the effect
of the principle of grammatical appropriation. Either immersion or
sprinkling could be used alone in appropriation, as freely as purification.
The Baptists can use the word immerse in this way ; though from the usual
custom of speaking of this ordinance, under the name baptism, the word
immerse is more seldom used in an appropriated way. The harshness
and abruptness which the author fancies, arise solely from the want of
constant appropriation. It is really irksome beyond expression, to be
obliged to notice reasoning so totally without application. When there
is a real difficulty presented to us, the mind rouses to exertion ; and
from the pleasure of discovery, is insensible of fatigue. But to be obliged
to reply to arguments which have not even plausibility to recommend
them, is an intolerable grievance.
" It may be asked," says the writer, " Why was baptizo ever used, if
Icatharizo would express the same meaning? We reply, that though
they both convey the sense of purifying, they do not exactly agree in
signification. We have no English words corresponding to the various
Greek words, agiazo, baptizo, Icatharizo, rantizo, &,c, because we have
not rites of purification corresponding to the various rites to which these
words were applied; and they may all, in some cases, be translated by
the one word purify. While from the passages examined, it appears
that baptizo does mean to purify, it also appears that when used in refer-
ence to the body, it is applied especially to the more solemn purifications,
by means of water ; and we shall find that in its application to mind, it
has a corresponding intensity of meaning."
The writer here endeavours to avoid the absurdity of the view of
352 REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE.
President Beecher, who makes baptizo and hatliarizo identical. But he
has plunged into numerous absurdities to avoid one.
1. Nothing here alleged unfits hatliarizo from being applied to desig-
nate the ordinance, if it was designed to name it by a word signifying
purification. It is not necessary that the peculiarities of purification
should be specified in the name of a rite of purification. The water of
purification was of a peculiar kind; yet the term purification designates
it. If the ordinance is called sprinkling, it is a sprinkling of water, not
of blood ; yet sprinkling applies to every fluid equally. If immersion is
the name of the ordinance, it is immersion in water ; yet immersion
equally applies to all substances in which anything can be dipped. I
still ask, then, why was not hatliarizo employed, if the name of the
ordinance is to express purification?
2. Does not the writer call the ordinance purification? Yet the term
purify is as general as hatliarizo. If in English, a purification of a par-
ticular kind is named by the general word purification, why may not the
same thing be done in Greek ? There is not the smallest apology for
baptizo, to thrust itself into office ; nor is there the least ground for its
adoption on any occasion of the meaning purification. Its services can
never be required.
3. We have English words to represent the Greek words specified.
4. The ground on which it is asserted, that we have no words to
translate the words specified, is unsound. Similarity of rites in two
languages, is not necessary to translate all words employed in one of
them, to designate religious rites. The word rantizo could be trans-
lated equally well into our language, if there never had been a sprinkling
rite in use amongst us.
5. The words specified, are not always applied in Greek to religious
rites. Why then should similar religious rites be necessary to trans-
late them ?
6. So far from its being true, that all the specified words may be,
in some cases, translated by the one word purify, not one of them, but
two can, in any case, be translated by the word purify. Rantizo cannot
be translated purify, though purification is effected by sprinkling. The
phrase sprinkling of the conscience, is not translated by purification of the
conscience. This might give the general meaning, but it would not
translate the original. The Holy Spirit, by this phraseology, designs not
only to designate the purification of the conscience, but to show us that the
sprinkling of the blood of the sacrifice was emblematical of this. A version
that would here substitute purification for sprinkling, I would renounce,
as inadequate and corrupt. I say the same thing with respect to agiazo
— it never is purify. Holiness and purification are quite different ideas.
7. Even when there is a rite in the language of the original, without
any similar rite in the language of the translation, the words that desig-
nate the rite, are capable of translation, as far as the language of the rite
employs words that also apply to common actions.
8. And in all such cases the common words of the translation are as
capable of assuming an appropriated meaning as the original itself. The
word passover, is as much appropriated in English as is the word in the
REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. 353
original. The word circumcision has received a similar appropriation ;
yet we have no similar rite. In like manner sprinkling, and perfusion ,
and immersion, may be applied to the ordinance, according to different
views of the import of its name. Though from the more common
usage employed by all parties, of speaking of the rite by the name bap-
tism, the other terms are less used in an appropriated way; yet they are
occasionally used both with propriety and perspicuity. A religious rite
of immersion previously existing, is not necessary in order to translate
the word which signifies immersion in the original. Immersion itself is
known to all nations, though some of them may have no religious im-
mersion previously to the introduction of Christianity.
9. The Greek word specified by the writer, and words in general,
have the same meaning, when applied to religious rites, that they have
when applied to common things. It is from their meaning as applied
to common things, that they are fitted to apply to religious rites. The
writer, with many others, seems to think that when a word is applied to
a sacred rite, it must, itself become sacred. This is philological Pusey-
ism. A word may apply to common and sacred things perfectly in the
same meaning. The word sprinkle has the same meaning when applied
to the sprinkling of the streets to lay the dust, as when applied to sprink-
ling with holy water.
10. Even had katharismos itself been used as the designation of this
rite, immersion might have been its mode, for an emblematical purpose.
In this sense it is explained in the Scriptures.
11. The author tells us that we have no word corresponding to
katharizo. Will he tell us in what respect purify fails ?
12. When baptizo is Used in reference to the body, it applies to other
purposes as well as ritual purification. Aristobulus was drowned by it,
and Naaman was bathed by it.
13. When baptizo is used in reference to the body, it applies to other
things as well as to water. Nothing was more common than to speak
of a baptism in blood. It is quite different as to the means which it
employs, provided it can penetrate.
14. In reference to ritual purification, it applies to every thing as well
as to body. It was applied to the pots and cups and vessels of the kitchen,
as well as to the persons of the Pharisees.
15. It applies to common washing as well as to sacred washing. It
is altogether, in reference to cleansing, as general in its application as is
katharizo, though it does not itself in any instance signify to cleanse .
while it equally refers to defiling as to cleansing.
16. The applications of the word in reference to mind are all figura-
tive. In such instances the word has always its proper meaning ; and
they are all not only in perfect harmony with our view, but many of
them absolutely require it.
17. It is absurd to speak of the word as having a different meaning
in reference to the body, from what it has in reference to other things.
18. It is equally erroneous to speak of a word as being used with dif-
ferent degrees of intensity, though some hermeneutical writers employ
this distinction in their laws of exegesis.
45
354 REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE.
19. The author seems to think that a word derives a portion of its
meaning from its situation with respect to other words. Connexion may
sometimes be absolutely necessary to determine which of two or more
meanings is the meaning in the passage ; but connexion never bestows
a particle of meaning.
20. By the hypothesis of our opponents, this word, from the fact that
immersion was so much used for cleansing, came at length to signify
cleansing, as the parent word came to signify dyeing. Had this been
the case, washing, not purification in general, would have been the se-
condary meaning. Purification has no pretensions to competition on
any ground whatever.
With respect to John iv. 1, 2, the author says, " Remarks similar to
those already made, may be repeated here. The verb has not the
context appropriate to the sense of dipping." And to these similar obser-
vations I give the same answer ; they are founded on the same inat-
tention to the effect of grammatical appropriation, that meets us every
where in this writer. Even had the word katharizo itself been used, it
must be supplied with its regimen by ellipsis. The thing with which a
purification is performed, is as necessary as the thing in which an im-
mersion takes place. When the Lord's supper is designated by the
phrase breaking bread, there is a perfectly similar ellipsis : the eating
of the bread for a particular purpose, and the drinking of the wine for
a particular purpose, are to be supplied elliptically. How could the
writer overlook facts so glaringly conspicuous, and so decidedly opposed
to his doctrine !
The author next refers to the supposed improbability of immersion
with respect to the three thousand baptized on the day of Pentecost.
Had it been related in the word of God that every man and woman in
Jerusalem were baptized on the same day, it would not, in the estima-
tion of any sound and candid mind, form the slightest objection to the
meaning of this word as immersion. There could be no difficulty in the
business. Comparatively few of the Jews, either from the requirements
of the law of Moses, or the traditions of the elders, could be a single day
without immersion. But even without reference to this point, that the
thing alleged Acts ii. 38, 41, was practicable, is sufficiently attested by
the fact that it was practised. What that thing is, must be learned from
the testimony of the word employed to convey the testimony, ascertained
by its occurrence in the language. I will not suffer my opponents to
call on me to gauge the fountains and ponds that were in Jerusalem
eighteen centuries back. Whether they used baths or cisterns, is quite
alike to me : the word provides every thing necessary for me. They
must have been immersed, for the word has no other meaning. Should
an English traveller inform us that in a very distant country, on a cer-
tain great festival, there were three thousand persons immersed in obser-
vance of a religious custom, should we either refuse to believe him, or
explain the word immerse in the sense of purification by sprinkling?
Why then do we find a difficulty in regard to three thousand Jews, who
were as familiar with the water as water fowls?
In Acts viii. 12, 13, 1G, he brings the same complaint as to the
REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. 355
regimen, which surely I have answered often enough. He thinks it very
improbable, also, that the great number of believers on that occasion
should be immersed. Especially he is overwhelmed with astonishment
that, if they were immersed, there should be no account of the inquiries
of the Gentiles about the new rite. Does the author really expect a
detail of every thing that happened on such occasions ? What sort of a
book would the Bible be, had it been formed on this gossiping principle ?
But from the conduct of Philip in preaching to the eunuch, we may learn
that the new rite would be sufficiently explained, both to Jews and
Gentiles.
The author thinks that immersed into the name of Christ, is unsuitable
phraseology. The Baptists, and millions of others, have found this
phraseology very intelligible and edifying. But does not the author per-
ceive that, except he has taken out a patent for his translation of eis in
this place, we can have the benefit of it? We may be immersed for the
name of Jesus, as well as he can be purified for it. I reject this trans-
lation, however, though it is no part of my duty to refute it.
With respect to Acts viii. 38, 1 have already shown that ek is decisive
evidence that Philip and the eunuch were in the water. It never, in a
single instance, designates merely from; it is always out of
I admit that eis means unto as well as into. I will not take a particle
of evidence from a word but what it legitimately contains. I write not
for a party, but for the people of God without exception — not for the
praise of reviewers, but for the judgment seat of Christ. But while
I admit this variety of meaning in this preposition, I will not give up its
testimony in this place. A word that has two meanings may be definitely
ascertained, and all good composition must afford evidence to ascertain
it, where it is used. That eis hudor here is not unto the water, but into
the water, appears evident from the fact, that the persons to whom the
fact refers, are previously brought to the water by another verb and
another preposition. Epi is the preposition that gives them their station
at the water. When, then, after coming to the water, they are said both
to go down eis hudor, what can it be but into the water ? Let this be
coupled with the fact which our opponents themselves cannot deny, that
immersion is frequently the meaning of the verb which designates the
action which they are about to perform. Let the testimony of ek, which
I have shown never wavers, and which this writer himself must admit
to be its usual meaning, be viewed in combination with all this, and
what doubt can remain on the mind of any man who really wishes to
come at truth on the subject ?
" If it were stated," says the author, " that both these persons went
into the water, this would be very different from the statement that one
dipped the other into the water."
These two statements are indeed very different, but it must be obvious
to any child that the first was in order to effect the last. Can any man
think that they would go both into the water, when a few drops would
serve in any place? Every candid mind must see that going into the
water was here necessary for the performance of baptism. Such
obstinacy can never be cured by argument. Were this a matter of
356 REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE.
heathen antiquity, is there a man in existence, who would question the
meaning ?
With respect to Acts ix. 18; xxii. 16, the author thinks that Paul
being a sick man, it is not probable that he was immersed. I see nothing
in Paul's case to prevent his immediate immersion : I consider such
reasoning as the most egregious trifling. Can anything be more unrea-
sonable than to attempt to evade the established meaning of a word, and
confer on it a meaning that cannot plead the authority of a single
example, on the pretence of such improbabilities? I object to this, not
merely as it affects the point in question, but as it establishes a false
principle of interpretation.
If a similar document came from the Baptist missionaries in any very
distant country, would there be any hesitation as to the meaning?
Would any one allege that it was probable that sprinkling was used
instead of immersion, or that the word immersion signifies sprinkling or
purification ? Were we to admit, as a canon of interpretation, that
difficulties and views of probability ought to set aside the usual meaning
of words, and give them meanings for which there is no other sanction,
what facts in history could stand their ground ? Every fanatic, every
religionist, every heretic, would give words whatever meaning they
pleased. In all cases of contested meaning, we must proceed on the
authority of ascertained examples, Without any deference to the authority
of previous probability. If Paul was baptized in a state of exhaustion,
before partaking of refreshment, we are not from this to deny the
meaning of the word, but to learn that baptism ought to be attended
to immediately on believing. It is connected with the faith that saves
the soul, and ought as closely as possible to be connected with it in
practice.
" It was either performed," says he, " while the person stood up, or it
so quickly followed his rising from a couch, that it might be said, He
rising up was baptized."
I care not that it was expressly said that he was baptized in the very
room where he was then sitting, immediately after the address of Ananias.
This woidd not create the smallest difficulty. Yet I am utterly astonished
that a literary man should interpret such forms of expression in this
manner. They are quite consistent with the supposition that some time
might intervene between the command and the execution ; and at some
distance from the place. When Ulysses returned to the ship with a
stag, throwing it from his shoulders, he called on his hungry companions,
saying, Rise and eat. Yet the stag must be skinned, spitted, and cooked,
before it was eaten ; and it was eaten in a different place from that in
which the address was made. In the Battle of the Frogs and Mice, the
herald that proclaimed war against the frogs, says : —
" Leaders of the host of frogs, put on
Your armour, and draw forth your bands to battle!"
The frogs were now in council, and some time must intervene before
the bands could be led forth. God says to Moses, "Rise up early in the
morning, and stand before Pharaoh." There was some time before his
REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. 357
rising and his standing before the king ; and some space between the
place where he rose and where he afterwards stood. " Now rise up,
said I, and get you over the brook Zered." There was some time be-
tween the command and the performance of the thing commanded; and
some space between the place of rising and the place where they were
commanded to go. " Rise, go up, take your journey, and pass over the
river Arnon," &c. &c.
The author tells us that the word has here " that connexion with terms
of religion which favours the supposition that it had a sacred meaning,
such as to purify, and not a common meaning, such as to dip, — " Dip
and cleanse away thy sins, invoking his name." Upon this I remark : —
1. What does he mean by terms of religion? Does he mean words that
are used in religion only ? There are no such terms here. All the words
referred to are used in common as well as in sacred things. Does he
mean words tliat are often used in religion ? Any word may be used
with respect to religion when its meaning is suitable. 2. Do we not find
a similar connexion with respect to the words wash, cleanse, sprinkle ?
yet they are common words. 3. A word does not become a religious
word by being applied to religion ; to icash, to cleanse, to purify, are
common words. A common word may apply to a sacred object without
becoming sacred. The hog and the devotee are cleansed by the same
word. 4. If immersion, as a mode, is employed by God to designate a
rite, is it not as holy as any word in the language? I make no such
objection to sprinkling or pouring, as the appointed mode of this ordi-
nance. 5. What are the consecrated terms with which baptizo is here
associated ? The first of them is wash aioay. Is louo a consecrated
word ? Invoking — the word calls on man as well as on God. 6. The
word is indeed associated here with a word that determines its meaning.
It is coupled with louo, to bathe, which always respects the person in
general when no part is named.
" The additional clause, cleanse away thy sins," says he, " is to be
regarded as additional in sense, and not as merely explanatory. Baptize
is the first injunction ; Cleanse away thy sins, that is, repent, is the
second ; Become a worshipper of Jesus Christ, is the third."
This is a very pure specimen of Puseyism. It is incontrovertibly evi-
dent that the command, "Wash away thy sins," respects what was to
take place in baptism. If then it was not symbolical washing, it must
be Puseyite regeneration. It is equally evident that this washing is per-
formed by the rite itself, and not by the Holy Spirit, for the command
about it is given to Paul. There is a place in the north of Ireland,
called the Holestone, named from a certain stone with a hole in it suffi-
cient, with difficulty, to allow a man to pass through it. In ancient
times, it is said, that there was a ceremony of passing through this hole
by which persons were born again. Now I think it might be expedient
to revive this ceremony ; for I cannot perceive any respect in which the
Holestone regeneration is inferior to baptismal regeneration.
This theology is very different from that of our Lord and his apostles.
It commanded them to make men disciples, and then to baptize them ;
and they said, Repent and be baptized, or, Believe and be baptized.
358 REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE.
Where does the writer learn that cleanse away sins and repent arc the
same ? They are always connected, but they are perfectly different. Re-
pentance is the duty of man ; washing away of sins is solely the work of
the Spirit. Paul had already repented ; his sins also were already washed
away. In baptism this was to be exhibited in a symbolical washing.
Paul had already become a worshipper of the Lord Jesus; he had pre-
viously called on the Lord Jesus. Why is it supposed that this was the
first time in which he called on him?
But the author is not contented with making cleanse away sins to be
repent. By a second process in the manufacture, he converts it into
"let there be in your heart that purity which, commencing with repent-
ance, is by regeneration perfected in those that trust in the Lord Jesus,"
&c. What a bright specimen of theology !
On Acts x. 47, 48, the author remarks, " The word here used in
connexion with water is, in the New Testament, always construed
with the object whose action or movement to any place is hindered or
forbidden."
Profound philology ! This surely will settle the question. What can
stand against such a battery of metaphysics? But let us examine it,
and we shall find that it is metaphysical only in form, and profound only
to those who have not a rule to dip it. I remark, then, 1. Were it per-
fectly correct, it is quite consonant with immersion. I have no objec-
tion at all, that the water should be brought into the room. I have no
doubt that, whatever may have been the case on this occasion, the thing
was often practised. 2. There is here no movement of the water ex-
pressed, nor does the verb require movement at all. It is frequently
used when there is no motion of an object from one place to another
3. It is not philosophical, but absurd, to speak of action here with
respect to the water. Water is not considered as an agent, but as the
thing employed by the agents. 4. In whatever way the phrase forbid
water, is understood, no person can suppose that the command is given
to the water, and that it was the water that was forbidden to come into
the room. If the prohibition respects the bringing of water into the
room, it must be directed to the persons, and not to the water. This is
as necessary in the sense of the phrase, according to this writer, as it is
in ours. 5. The writer says, " It is most properly employed, if the
water for baptism was brought into the room in which the persons were."
Granting this for a moment, what is the ellipsis ? Would it not be :
" Who can forbid water to be brought into the room ?" Now is not a
like ellipsis warrantable on our side? Who can forbid water to be
brought for immersing these persons ? 6. The conversation of every day
exemplifies the phrase in our meaning. The physician forbids wine,
&c. &c. Does not this mean, he forbids the invalid the use of wine ?
7. Forbid water has not, even to a child, the appearance of relation to
the question whether water was to be brought, or they were to go to the
water. Common sense at once declares the meaning to be, Wlw can
forbid baptism 1 Who can forbid the external rite, when the thing of
which it is an emblem, is verified? If they have received the Spirit, what
ordinance should be denied them ? 8. We have in Luke vi. 29, the very
REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. 359
same word similarly construed. " Forbid not the coat." Was this com-
mand to the coat? Was it the action or the movement of the coat that
was forbidden? Can we not ourselves say, can any forbid the Lord's
supper? The phraseology of this passage will equally suit every mode
of this ordinance, and any ordinance that employs water.
With respect to Acts xvi. 15, 1 certainly can have no objection to the
opinion of the writer, that Lydia was baptized in the place where Paul
preached : the sooner the better. As to her dress, and anything that
is not matter of Divine prescription, I leave to the descretion of those
concerned on the occasion. I shall neither be the master of the cere-
monies myself, nor allow my opponent to undertake that service. The
author, as usual, complains of the want of regimen. It cannot be
necessary for me to return to this subject. He tells us that " It cannot
be inferred from the mention of the river, that a large quantity of water
was necessary for Christian baptism." I admit this most fully, and most
cheerfully. I have no doubt that the river would have been in that
place, and that it would have contained as much water, had sprinkling
been the mode of the ordinance of Christ. But the writer forgets that
this is the very kind of proof the burden of which he demands from us.
Does he forget that he calls on us to gauge the fountain of Bethulia ?
I shall take on me no such burden. When a word requires water, it
must have it, wherever it may find it. Had Lydia been said to be bap-
tized on the spot where she believed, without the mention of fountain
or river, I should have perfectly the same confidence in the mode of her
baptism. Little value, however, as the writer sets upon the river here,
had Lydia been said to be baptized in the place where Paul preached,
without any evidence that a river or fountain was near, I am fully con-
vinced he would have loudly complained of want of water. Still the
river would have been there.
Taking it for granted, then, that she was baptized at the river, and
that her house, as the author seems to think, was in the city, does not
the phraseology annihilate the distance as much as that in Acts x. ?
When she was baptized she said, "Come into my house, and abide;"
or, " Having entered into my house, abide." Similar phraseology occurs
in verse 40, " They went out of prison, and entered into the house of
Lydia." Here the time and distance, according to this writer, are
annihilated.
Let the unlearned reader here take notice, that the place of preaching
is said to be para, at, or near the river — not en, in the river, as it might
be, according to the criticism of our author.
The author comes next to the baptism of the jailer. He usually
translates for himself, as if the common version were in every thing
wrong. I am not to be supposed as approving his version, as often as I
pass it without censure. I notice no errors, but such as concern the
point in hand. What our version calls " washed their stripes," he trans-
lates, " made them clean from their wounds." The author's translation
is inferior, both in elegance and in correctness. The original is stripes,
not wounds : the term wounds is too generic. The original is bathed,
not made clean : the latter is generic, the former is specific. Bathing,
360 REPLT TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE.
and making clean, are not equivalent. Homer represents Jupiter as
giving directions to Apollo, to cleanse the body of Sarpedon, slain in
battle, and afterwards to bathe it in a river.
"Phoebus, my son, delay not: from beneath
Yon bill of weapons drawn, cleanse from his blood
Sarpedon's corse; then, bearing him remote,
Lave him in waters of the running stream."— Cowper.
The jailer, then, might have cleansed them from their wounds without
bathing them; but the original imports, that they were cleansed by
bathing. All cleansing is not washing ; and all washing is not bathing.
When Achilles sends out his friend Patroclus to battle, he took out
his goblet of exquisite workmanship to make libation to Jupiter. But
first he purified it with sulphur, and then washed it in running water.
" That cup producing from the chest, he first
With sulphur fumed it, then with water rinsed
Pellucid of the running stream." — Cowper.
Cleanse, or make clean, is, then, quite a different thing from bathe. It
may here be observed also, that this was a sacred rite, yet the same
words are used for ritual purification, that are employed for common
purification.
The author is of opinion, that there is an apparent connexion between
the washing of the wounds and the performance of the rite. Be it so ;
why might they not immerse the jailer and his family in the same bath
in which they were washed from their stripes? But there is no such
connexion as this writer fancies. The baptism and the bathing, as far
as the passage is concerned, might not have been at the same time, or
the same place. Had there been no conveniences for immersion in the
prison, what would prevent them from going to the Strymon, on which
the city was situated? But where they were baptized, I neither know
nor care.
It is of importance, however, to consider the intimate connexion
between baptism and the faith of the Gospel, as it is exhibited in this
transaction. Notwithstanding the miserable plight of Paul and his com-
panion, the baptism was performed before they partook of refreshment
in the jailer's house. Can anything more clearly indicate the importance
of this ordinance?
The author speaks of " the assumption of the axiom, that baptizo must
mean to dip." Who is it that assumes this as an axiom ? I assume
nothing but what is self-evident, which the meaning of no word is. As
far, then, as I am concerned, this representation is calumnious ; I never
assume the meaning of any word : I assign no meaning till the occur-
rences of a word are ascertained and examined. Whether a word has
one meaning, or several meanings, I determine by this examination on
philosophical principles. When I have ascertained the primary meaning
of a word, I apply it to every case where it will serve, admitting no new
meaning till occurrences prove it. When I have ascertained a second
meaning, I will not admit a third as long as the first or second will serve.
REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. 361
Thus I proceed with respect to any number of meanings, never admitting
a new meaning without proof. Submission to these principles I demand
on the ground of self-evidence. Submission to them, I yield with
respect to every opponent. These laws are for truth — not for party.
Perverseness may reject them — perverseness has rejected every first
principle ; but I have no doubt that all candid persons will acquiesce in
them. Without first principles interpretation is impossible. Mathematics
may as well demonstrate without axioms. The criticism of our oppo-
nents is altogether without science: instead of leading to sound conclu-
sions, it introduces universal confusion and uncertainty.
Now, let us for a moment compare the assumptions of this writer
with mine. Let us take an example from the very case in hand.
Having enumerated a great number of his improbabilities, he concludes:
" But if this was not Christian duty and practice, then baptizo does not
signify to dip." Now, does not the writer here assume the very point
in debate ? He assumes a view of Christian duty and practice ; and
on that ground determines the meaning of the word totally without
reference to its use in the language. What is Christian duty and
practice, we must learn from the words of Scripture, — not from a crazy
imagination. Whether this word signifies to immerse, we must learn,
not from our own views of probability, but from the examples in which
it is found in the language. Had Abraham used thi^ principle of inter-
pretation, he never would have submitted to circumcision — he never
would have consented to kill Isaac. I refuse to listen to any testimony
but that of the word itself, speaking in the instances in which it is
found in the language. All persons who attempt to settle the question
on any other ground, I denounce as fanatics in criticism.
With respect to Acts xviii. 8, and 1 Cor. i. 13 — 17, the author says,
" In both of these passages the verb is used alone ; and that the special
and sacred sense of purify, is more suitable to such a usage, than the
general common sense of dip, is immediately obvious. On the one
supposition, we have the strange sentences, They believed and were
dipped," &c.
Here, again, our author's error arises from his inattention to gram-
matical appropriation. I have, again and again, shown that even where
purify is applied to a sacred rite, it acquires no sacred or special signifi-
cation. It is just the common signification, applied in reference to a
sacred thing ; and in like manner dip, in its common signification, ap-
plies to the most sacred things. As to the sense of the word there is no
difference between the common and sacred.
What the author calls strange sentences, are exemplified in all lan-
guages every hour : it is what must happen with respect to all appro-
priations. It is strange beyond conception, that the author did not
perceive that the very same thing takes place with respect to the word
circumcise. This word can be used alone : " Ye on the sabbath-day cir-
cumcise a man." What a strange sentence! Cut a man around! But I
need not waste time in proving what must be familiar to every reader.
" That baptizing," says the writer, " was regarded by St. Paul as a
purifying or consecrating to the service of Him for whom the rite was
46
362 REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE.
administered, agrees exactly with the train of thought exhibited in tne
latter passage," &c.
Might not baptizing be viewed as a purification, though its name is
not purification? Purifying may be the emblem of the rite, as well when
it is called immersion, as if purification were its name. It is strange
that the author brings this so often forward, without perceiving its
fallacy. One would think that he never heard of circumcision. It is
not my object to discover the errors of the writer on any other subject
than that of the meaning of the word in question ; but I strongly sus-
pect that he had some Puseyite view of the nature of this rite. It is no
consecration; it is no ceremonial purification; it is only an emblematical
cleansing.
The question, Acts xix. 4 — 7, has to the writer the same appearance
of strangeness in our view of the meaning of the disputed word. I hope
I have, by this time, made him a little more familiar with this style,
from circumcision and other appropriations. His anointed king or priest,
would be familiar to every one; an oiled king, would appear strange. I
could bear such criticism from the vulgar ; but it is intolerable from a
man of letters. Did the writer ever hear of dubbing a man a knight ?
To dub, means to strike ; and knights were constituted by the blow of a
sword. Let us try the writer's criticism on this expression : " On the
supposition that dub signifies to strike, we have this strange question,
Were you struck a knight? Dub, then, cannot signify to strike; but
pwify will suit to admiration. Were you purified a knight ? is most
natural and appropriate."
On the supposition that the persons referred to in this passage were
baptized in the first interview, the author complains with respect to a
change of raiment. Such inquiries show more perverseness than
wisdom. I hold such things as utterly unworthy of mention. The
meaning of the word can never be affected by such scruples. As they
were baptized, they were immersed. I care not how they were provided
on the occasion.
I have now gone through this series of papers, and examined every thing
that has the appearance of argument with a minuteness that must appear
tedious to most readers. Two ways suggested themselves to me for my
procedure. The first was, to detect the false principles on which both
the arguments and objections rest, and leave the reader to make the
application. The second was, to follow the writer, and refute every thing
in detail. The first would have been more suitable to my general under-
taking; but the second is the most satisfactory fur most readers, especially
as the controversy immediately concerns the interpretation of so many
passages of Scripture, and so vast a range of Greek literature. Had I
contented myself with showing that when he takes out of the word in
question continuation, effect, intention, with many other things that the
word itself does not contain, I might have done enough for the learned
world ; but readers in general, will wish to have the principles unfolded
by illustration. At first,'I determined to dismiss the consideration of the
prepositions concerned in the controversy, with a few observations; but
I afterwards considered that, however tedious the task, it would be more
REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. 363
satisfactory to give a particular account of every passage in Greek lite-
rature, to which the writer appeals for his doctrine, as to the testimony
of the prepositions. This I thought the more necessary, as some of the
most essential principles on this subject have been overlooked, or mis-
taken, by the most distinguished grammarians ; while their doctrine has
been used for purposes they never contemplated.
The fundamental error of my opponent, with regard to the preposi-
tions concerned in this controversy is, that in ascertaining their testi-
mony, he makes the English idiom the standard to which the Greek
must conform. I have shown, that with as good reason the English
might be made to conform to the Greek ; but that neither should be
obliged to conform to the other. It is not certain that a Greek prepo-
sition has such a meaning in such a place, because in such a situation
we should use such a preposition ; for the idioms of the two tongues
may be, in this respect, different. We may sometimes use an English
preposition to translate a Greek one, when the two prepositions are by
no means coincident in meaning. This is a canon of great importance.
My opponent, so far from being aware of it, interprets the Greek prepo-
sitions by whatever English prepositions would be used by us in the
same situation. Can anything more strongly show the necessity of sound
principles as the foundation of sound interpretation.
CHAPTER VII.
OBSERVATIONS ON THE VIEW OF DR. MILLER, OF NEW YORK, WITH
RESPECT TO THE MEANING OF THE WORD BAPTISM.
Section I. — " If I know my own heart," says Dr. Miller, " it is my
purpose to exhibit the subject in the light of truth, and to advance
nothing but that which appears to rest on the authority of Him who in-
stituted the ordinance under consideration, and who is alone competent
to declare his will concerning it." Though this is of no value as to his
argument, yet it is of infinite value as to himself; and the expression of
such a sentiment cannot fail to be satisfactory to his opponents, while
it entitles him to that " candid and patient hearing" which he requests.
If I forget it in any of my observations on his work, it is far from my
intention in the commencement. My design is to examine his reason-
ing fairly, candidly, and patiently. If he has a single particle of truth,
which I have not yet discovered, I will accept it with gratitude. Truth
is my riches : to contend for it in the sight of God, is my highest glory.
Men of sincerity and men of God may be in error as to the meaning of
Scripture, yet in no instance is error either innocent or harmless. We
should know, and it must be in all cases important to know, what God
has revealed for our belief and practice. If attachment to a favourite
view makes its evidence appear stronger than it really is, or makes us
view as evidence that which is not of the nature of evidence ; if it pre-
vents opposite evidence from having its due weight, our sincerity is no
security for arriving at a just conclusion.
Notwithstanding the favourable impression made on me by the decla-
ration quoted above, I am greatly impressed with a conviction that in
announcing his very design, he manifests symptoms of distrust in his own
cause. He seems to me hardly to know with precision what he is to
state as his belief on the subject, and what he is to prove. " Sprink-
ling or affusion," he tells us, " is a method of baptism just as valid and
lawful as any other." And while he announces it as his object to prove
this, he says, in the same breath, " or rather to maintain, from Scrip-
ture, and from the best usages of the Christian church, that baptism by
sprinkling or affusion, not only rests on as good authority as immer-
sion, but that it is a method decisively more scriptural, suitable, and
edifying."
364
REPLY TO DR. MILLER. 365
Here then is an utter want of precision. He does not tell us what is
the meaning of the word ; and throughout his whole work I have not
learned what he makes its meaning in the ordinance of Christ. He
confounds sprinkling and affusion, which are different modes, and which
are expounded by their friends as being different emblems. He sup-
poses that several modes, or all modes, are equally lawful, yet that
sprinkling or affusion is more scriptural, suitable, and edifying, than any
of them. If it is more scriptural than the rest, how can all modes be
included in the meaning of the word? If all modes are included in the
meaning of the word, no mode can be more scriptural than any other.
If sprinkling is decisively more suitable and edifying than any other
mode, does he not bring a charge against the Institutor for not restrict-
ing the observance to this mode?
11 Now we contend," says Dr. M., " that this word does not neces-
sarily, nor even commonly, signify to immerse, but also implies to wash,
to sprinkle, to pour on water, and to tinge or die with any liquid ; and
therefore accords very well with the mode of baptism by sprinkling or
affusion."
You contend, Dr. M. ! Where do you thus contend ? Say rather
you assert, for there is not even an attempt to prove this diversity of
meaning. I have gone through a vast range of Greek literature ; and
from all the examples I could meet, I have shown that the word has but
one meaning, and that this one meaning is immersion. Dr. M. meets
me by an objection that he contends that the word has not only a
secondary meaning, but a variety of meanings that no word in any
language could have ; and all this without even an attempt at proof by
examples and criticism. If Dr. M. and his friends think that this is
evidence, they may be sincere in believing anything. Dr. M. not only
asserts what he has not attempted to prove, but what is contrary to self-
evidence. There is not in any language a word that signifies the three
modes in question, or any two of them. If a word extends to all of
them, it can signify none of them. It might as well be said that the
word immerse in English signifies to dip, to pour, to sprinkle, as that the
Greek word has such significations ; or that pour signifies to dip and to
sprinkle ; and that sprinkle signifies to pour and to dip. I would dispute
the point with every confidence, if it respected a language of whose
very alphabet I am ignorant.
But what shall I say to the assertion of Dr. M., that this word sig-
nifies to tinge or to dye ? Have I not, on the authority of every example
of the alleged occurrences of this word, proved that it is never used in
the sense of the primitive word signifying to dye ? Has he met any
instance proving the contrary? If he has, why has he not produced it?
If he has not, why has he made such an assertion?
Section II. — There is a peculiarity in Dr. M.'s reasoning, which I
do not think I have ever met in any controversial writer. He substitutes
his own solemn assertions for proof. " I can assure you," says he,
i! that the word we render baptize, does legitimately signify the appli-
cation of water in any way, as well as by immersion." This he never
366 REPLY TO DR. MILLER.
attempts to prove. Surely they who can be convinced by this, may
believe anything to which their prejudices incline them. To rebut this,
it would be enough for me to say, " I assure you that Dr. M. is quite
mistaken." Why has Dr. M. entered the field at all, when he has never
fired a shot, but only blank cartridge ?
I demand the proof of this solemn assertion. Where are the docu-
ments that warrant it? So far from signifying every application of
water, the word has no essential connexion with water at all — nor even
with fluids. It is applicable to every thing that is capable of being
penetrated. But if it is a word so various in its meaning, as to common
things, why has not Dr. M. told us whether it has all these meanings in
the ordinance of baptism, or which of them it has?
"The evangelists," says Dr. M., "tell us that the scribes and Pha-
risees invariably washed (in the original, baptized) their hands before
dinner." Where are we told this? The common reading is not bap-
tized. But were it adopted, is it not quite suitable ? What hinders
the hands to be immersed ? Does Dr. M. think that if the word can
refer to the hands as a part, it cannot refer to the body as a whole ?
May we not dip the hand as well as the body ? This argument is so
inapplicable, that I can hardly trust myself to state it in order to refu-
tation. To whom does it need refutation ?
" When we are told," he continues, " that when they come from the
market, except they wash, (in the original, 'except they baptize,') they
eat not." What difficulty is here? Why should not this be immer-
sion ? What they did on this occasion is known from the signification
of the word ; let that be determined by the authority of the language
in general, and it will then be known what they did on coming from
market.
" When we read," says Dr. M., " of the Pharisees being so scrupulous
about the washing (in the original, the baptizing) of cups, pots, and
brazen vessels, and tables, &c. ; it surely cannot mean in any of these
cases, to immerse or plunge." How does the reading of this prove that
baptism is not immersion ? If these things were baptized, they were
immersed, because this is the meaning of the word in the language.
What would hinder the Pharisees from immersing these things ? Every
thing mentioned is easily capable of immersion. Must we give a new
meaning to a word in order to save trouble to superstition ? If such
arguments weigh in the mind of any man, I will not deny that he may
be very conscientious, but I cannot avoid believing that he is more easily
satisfied with proof than a sound mind ought to be.
Dr. M. next refers to the baptism of the Holy Ghost ; but this is a
figurative baptism, in which there is no literal immersion, pouring, or
sprinkling, nor any likeness as to any mode. There is no mode in the
operations of the Spirit.
Next, he brings us to the Red Sea, and denies that the Israelites in
their baptism there, were immersed. If he means that the water did
not touch them, it is very true ; but can candour refuse to admit that
what took place on that occasion may, both emblematically and beauti-
fully, be called an immersion, or a burial in the sea ? He says, that
REPLY TO DR. MILLER. 367
the cloud did not touch them. The Scripture says, that they were in
the cloud, and tinder the cloud. He knows that they were not immersed,
though the narrative expressly says that they were immersed, using the
most definite word in the language ; yet he is very willing to believe
that they were sprinkled by the spray, though there is no such thing
mentioned. If persons will be so unreasonable in rejecting evidence on
one side, and so credulous on the other, they may be very conscientious,
but we must be allowed to say, that they are very confident in error.
He next refers to the case of Judas dipping his hand in the dish, at
the passover. He says, that " no one can imagine that this implies that
the whole hand was immersed in the gravy." Surely, this is egregious
trifling. Has this anything to do with the mode expressed by the word ?
Might it not as well be alleged that the English word dip does not
signify to immerse, because the English version says of Judas, that he
dipped his hand in the dish? Does not the same objection apply equally
to the translation as to the original ? It is astonishing that any degree
of perspicacity could not discover this. Besides, the whole hand might
be immersed in the dish : it is in the dish, and not in the gravy. Surely,
it is unworthy of such a man as Dr. M. to quibble in this manner. The
word has its mode here, as well as if the object had gone to the bottom
of the Baltic.
With respect to the above cases he says, " It surely cannot mean, in
any of these cases, to immerse, or plunge." It surely does mean to dip,
in each of the cases.
" If a man is said, by the inspired evangelist," says Dr. M., " to be
baptized, when his hands only are washed." I must believe that Dr.
M. states evidence conscientiously. If I must, what am I to think of
his accuracy ? Is it not awful to report evidence from the testimony of
the Holy Spirit in this manner ? Millions of people will rely on this
representation, as on an oracle ; and believe that the Holy Spirit says
that the persons are baptized, who have only their hands washed. This
is not the testimony of the evangelist. As long as the leaders of parties
will allow themselves to take such freedom with their documents, they
teach their followers to pervert the word of God.
" If couches," he says, " are spoken of as baptized, when the cleansing
of water was applied to them in any manner." When it was applied to
them in any manner ! Is this an honest way to report facts ? Where
did he learn that the water was applied in any manner, when it is spoken
of, as the baptism of couches? This is to assume the thing in dispute.
How the water was applied, we can learn only from the word. Now
can this be reasoning? What is the use of such assertions? Can it
serve any purpose but to deceive the ignorant and the credulous?
He adds: " and when the complete immersion of them is out of the
question." Here again he assumes as a thing impossible, that which is
not only possible, but of easy performance. Couches may be immersed
without any difficulty ; and if the Holy Spirit reports truly, couches
were immersed, as they are said to have been baptized. I cannot suffi-
ciently express the surprise I feel, that this distinguished writer should
allow himself to make such assumptions. If he counted on the credulity
368 REPLY TO DR. MILLER.
of his own party, did he think that we should allow him to assume the
point in debate ? Indeed the palpable fact that among all the instances
in which this word is applied, there is not one in which the thing said to
be baptized is not capable of immersion, is an irrefragable argument in
favour of immersion. Had it any other signification, it must sometimes
be found applied to things incapable of immersion. Did it, for instance,
signify to pwify, or to pour, or to sprinkle, it would often be found
applied to things that could not have been immersed, as houses, &c.
Houses are said to be purified, — never to be baptized. If we allow Dr.
M. to assume the point in debate, and take his solemn assurances for
proof, there is not on earth a more convincing reasoner. But if this
is not granted to him, there is nothing of argument in his work.
Let us suppose that the question respects a modern custom of some
foreign nation, and that from the report of a traveller, there is a different
judgment formed as to the action performed on the couches. One party
says they were dipped ; another says they were merely sprinkled ; an-
other, that water was poured on them ; another, that they were washed
in any manner ; another, that they were fumigated ; another, that they
were scoured, &c. How is the controversy to be settled? Is it not by
the testimony of the word employed to designate the action ?
With respect to Heb. ix. 10, Dr. M. says : " Now we know that by
far the greater part of these ' divers washings,' were accomplished by
sprinkling or affusion, and not by immersion." Do we so, Dr. M.?
How do we know that these divers baptisms were accomplished by
sprinkling or affusion? We cannot know this, unless we take Dr. M.'s
solemn assurance as proof of the fact. Here, again, he assumes the
point to be proved; he assumes that these baptisms are washings in
general, and that sprinklings are washings. We know, indeed, that there
were a great number of sprinklings and affusions under the law ; but
how do we know that all these sprinklings and affusions, or any of them,
are called baptisms ? How do we know that what are here called divers
baptisms were performed by sprinkling and affusion? This passage
does not assert this. Can this be known in any other way than by
ascertaining the meaning of the word baptism, by the usage of the
language ? Where does he learn that what is done by sprinkling or
affusion, belongs to those divers baptisms? Can he know this from any
other source, than from the meaning of the word itself? " The blood
of the paschal lamb," he tells us, " was directed to be sprinkled on the
door-posts of the tabernacle." Nothing can be more incontrovertible.
But was this sprinkling of blood a literal washing ? Was it a baptism ?
It was an emblematical purification ; but it was a literal defilement.
Sprinkling is not washing; and washing is not baptism. Is the
sprinkling of the blood on the door-posts called a baptism here, or any-
where else? Is the sprinkling of the book, and of the people, Heb.
ix. 19, called a baptism? Is the sprinkling of the consecrated oil called
baptism? Is the sprinkling of the blood on the day of atonement called
baptism? Why assume all these points as facts? Can this be called
reasoning from principles, or expounding from the ascertained meaning
of words? Dr. M. might as well solemnly assure his readers of the
REPLY TO DR. MILLER. 369
truth of his doctrine, on the authority of his dreams. This is worse than
dreaming; for thousands of readers will take this for satisfactory proof.
To what purpose is it to refer us to the sprinkling of Aaron and
his sons with blood, with other sprinklings ? There were divers purifica-
tions, but they were not divers baptisms. Yet, after enumerating these
sprinklings, he gravely tells us : " Now these are the divers baptisms
of which the apostle speaks." Who told him this ? The passage does
not say so : we have not even the authority of a dream. Nothing but
assumption, assumption, assumption. Why does he not identify these
sprinklings with the baptisms ? This has never been effected ; this
cannot be effected. Dr. M. is like a lawyer, who is very strong in proof
that the son of such a man is entitled to a particular estate, but utterly
fails in proving the identity of his client with the person who is the heir.
This he merely assumes.
But Dr. M. will give us proof at last. " Happily," says he, " the
inspired apostle does not leave us in doubt what those divers baptisms
were, of which he speaks." Well, I will ask no better authority than
that which he proposes. I will bow with implicit submission to the
decision of the inspired apostle. If Paul tells us that certain sprinklings
are baptisms, I will believe that they are such. But the inspired apostle
says nothing like this. Dr. M. tells us that the inspired apostle " singles
out, and presents sprinkling as his chosen and only specimen." Does
the apostle give sprinkling as a specimen of baptism ? He does no such
thing. In showing us how the apostle gives sprinkling as a specimen of
baptism, Dr. M. says, " ' For,' says he, in the 13th, 19th, and 21st
verses of the same chapter, explaining what he means by ' divers bap-
tisms,' ' if the blood of bulls, and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer,
sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh; how
much more shall the blood of Christ,' " &c. Now how is this a reason
for what he alleges? How does this explain what the apostle means by
divers baptisms 1 Does this identify sprinkling with baptism ? The
argument of this passage is, that if the sprinkling of blood under the
law served to purify ceremonially, much more would the blood of Christ
purify from sin. There is here nothing that looks like an identification
of the sprinklings under the law, with the baptisms under the law.
How can any man say, that the sprinkling in the 13th verse is one of
the " divers baptisms" previously mentioned ? The verses referred to,
give no specimen of the " divers baptisms," but contrast the efficacy of
the blood of Christ with that of the sprinklings under the law. Instead
of explaining what the inspired apostle means by the divers baptisms.
the verses referred to preach the atonement.
But in addressing Jews, it is absurd to suppose that it was necessary
for the apostle to explain what was meant literally by the divers bap-
tisms. Did they need an explanation of the meaning of a word employed
to designate a practice of their own law?
That the word signifies every application of water, Dr. M. again and
again asserts; but he never enters into proof by an actual appeal to the
occurrences of the word in the language. Of what use is such a work
as to controversy? Can anything but the usage of the language,
47
370 REPLY TO DR. MILLER.
proved by examples, determine the question ? There is in his work,
nothing like criticism. He alludes to my bold assertion, that the word is
perfectly univocal, yet he never grapples with my reasoning and exam-
ples. The work may be a very good confession of his faith, as to the
meaning of the word : but it never enters into the discussion of the
question.
The next point which Dr. M. professes to prove is, that " there is
nothing in the thing signified by baptism which renders immersion
more necessary or proper than any other mode of applying water in this
ordinance."
Were this a fact it would not deliver from the obligation of immersion.
If a mode is commanded, that mode ought to be observed. If Jesus
says Go, we should go : if he says Come, we should come, without
stopping to inquire the reason of the command. Whether there is any-
thing emblematical in the mode of the rite, depends not on the word,
but on the inspired explanation of the ordinance. Nothing can be more
clearly taught than that the mode is emblematical. Rom. vi. 1, is most
express.
Dr. M. gives us a number of examples in which pouring and sprink-
ling are used with respect to Divine blessings. Did any one ever deny
this ? Does this show that immersion cannot be used for an emblem-
atical purpose ?
Does Dr. M. believe that pouring and sprinkling are emblematical in
baptism ? If so, which of them is the mode appointed ? Pouring and
sprinkling are modes as different from one another, as each of them is
from immersion. If so, no other mode but the one appointed can be
true baptism. How can he admit that the other modes can be valid 1
Assuredly, if any mode is used for an emblematical purpose, that mode is
essential, as really as the water. He appears to me, however, to believe
that Christ has affixed no emblem as to mode, but that we may adopt a
mode that will be suitable and edifying by its emblem. If this is his
meaning, then he may compete either with Pusey, or the Pope. If he
has a warrant to create emblems, he may also create ordinances.
The improbabilities and difficulties of immersion are the next objec-
tions. How could three thousand be immersed in one day ? Would to
God that he would put it into my power to make the experiment ;
I have no doubt that I could accomplish the matter in the third part of
a day. The difficulties and improbabilities are all grounded on super-
stitious views of the ordinance. The performance of baptism is not
confined to office — this is the mummery of Babylon. In baptizing the
three thousand on the day of Pentecost, I will trouble neither the twelve
nor the seventy, if they have more important work. But he has another
difficulty as to the water. I can do miracles about the water ; I will
make the word find it for me, even in the deserts of Arabia, if it is
asserted that there was a baptism there. This writer, like our opponents
in general, mistakes the burden of proof. It does not lie on us to show
that there is any evidence of water, except the evidence implied in
the word. Many writers on our side have shown that there is inde-
pendent evidence of the sufficiency of water in Jerusalem. This is highly
REPLY TO DR. MILLER. 371
useful, with a view of putting obstinacy to the blush ; but it is not
necessary to prove the fact by direct evidence in any instance. I trample
on such objections. If it be asserted by credible testimony that a man
was shot, are you to refuse belief, unless you are informed where the
powder and ball were purchased, in order to kill him ?
Section III. — The following observation appears to me to be both
unchristian and unphilosophical. " The man, therefore, who can believe
that the three thousand on the day of Pentecost were baptized by
immersion, must have great faith, and a wonderful facility in accommo-
dating his belief to his wishes." Must have great faith! Is this a
becoming way of speaking of the belief of a Scripture statement ? To
have any propriety, this must imply that the thing is asserted, but that
it is highly improbable. If the thing is not supposed to be asserted,
there cannot be great faith in believing it. I can find no other consistent
meaning in the expression, than that, although the word did testify the
fact, it is too improbable for rational belief. Now I will make myself
still more credulous, and had it been testified by the inspired writer that
three hundred thousand were baptized in one day, I would not scruple
to believe that the thing was true in the proper meaning of the word.
Let God be true, and all men liars. If the word is supposed to have
other meanings, and that the testimony of the Spirit in this place has
not the alleged meaning, then it is absurd to speak of faith in that alleged
meaning as great faith. It is faith in a thing that is not testified.
It is utterly unphilosophical as well as unscriptural to reject testimony
on views of probability : on this very ground all the doctrines of the
Gospel have been rejected. Another may as reasonably say, " The man
that can believe that a guilty creature can become righteous by faith in
Jesus, must have great faith." When we believe that three thousand
were immersed in one day, we rest on the Divine testimony, ascertained
by the meaning of the words which the Spirit uses. Whether they were
immersed depends on the meaning of the word, not on any view of
probability. To speak of a facility in accommodating our faith to our
wishes, is speaking not only without evidence, but contrary to self-
evidence. How many thousands of those who are the most zealous for
immersion, have received it not from their fathers, nor their sect, nor
from their temporal interests, but in opposition to all these! What
advantage can it be in this world to any man? To oppose infant
sprinkling is the heaviest part of the cross of Christ. Why, then, should
we wish it true, when it is our interest to be convinced that it is false?
All temptations to tamper with evidence lie obviously on the other side.
Were Sir Isaac Newton at this moment alive, and a Baptist, I really
believe that in Great Britain or Ireland it would be difficult to procure
him the situation of a parish schoolmaster.
But so far from being an insurmountable difficulty at all, except to
superstition, what could prevent any number to be immersed on the
same day ? Could there be any difficulty in finding water in Jerusalem
and its neighbourhood? Had he nothing but human testimony for the
fact, to reject it on the ground of improbability would be unwarrantable.
372 REPLY TO DR. MILLER.
Section IV. — The next point which Dr. M. approaches is John's
baptism. This, he tells us, was not Christian baptism. Well, what
does this say on the meaning of the word ? What is baptism in one
case is baptism in another. Whatever difference in any other respect
there may be between the baptism of John and the baptism of Christ,
there could be no difference in the mode : there could be no difference
in the meaning of the word.
He appeals to Acts xix. 1 — 6, as proof that some of John's disciples
were afterward baptized in the name of the Lord. I know this is dis-
puted ; but for my part I never doubted it, I cannot see how this can be
denied without torturing the word of God, which I will never do for any
cause whatever.
" There is no evidence," says he, " and I will venture to say no pro-
bability, that John ever baptized by immersion." What evidence could
he expect but the testimony of the word ? If that signifies to immerse,
then there is express evidence that the very action designated by the
name of the ordinance is immersion. He might as well venture to say
that there is no evidence, and no probability, that Jesus rose from the
dead. He might allege that the word resurrection has another meaning.
On the same principle, when we read that such a person was hilled in
the field of battle, there is no evidence that he is dead. Is not this
imported in the word killed? And if it is not proved by this, it is not
proved at all by the document. Now there is no man who would reason
with obstinacy so foolish in reference to our own language. Yet this is
the very thing that Dr. M. and almost all our opponents do with respect
to this word. In ascertaining the evidence of its meaning, they receive
not its own testimony. Nothing can be more purely fanatical. There
may be additional evidence and corroborating circumstances, but the
direct proof of what John did in baptizing, or any other man did in
baptizing, must be the testimony of the word itself. Men who do not
understand this are not fit to enter the field of controversy. Besides, as
the ground-work of his allegation of improbability, he assumes what is
not in evidence, that John must have baptized all his converts personally,
and all in the space of two years and a half. The very improbability is
mere assumption.
At Enon he makes the abundance of water necessary for an encamp-
ment of men, women and children around John the Baptist. Is this
interpretation, or is it romance ? Is there any among the fairy tales
more a work of fancy than this? Is there evidence that any of the
crowd remained on the ground a single night? I must believe, and I
will try to believe, that Dr. M. thinks he is fairly representing the
evidence of the inspired documents : but if he does, he must be to a
wonderful extent under the influence of imagination. He creates a fact
in order to create a difficulty. What is it that men may not fancy that
they see in Scripture, when, under all the pledges he has given us, Dr.
M. reports that this passage informs him of an encampment around
John the Baptist? No wonder that historians like Gibbon, vitiate their
facts by additions from imagination, when they are opposed to truth!
But of all extravagances, the following is the most extravagant : —
REPLY TO DR. MILLER. 373
" John, as a poor man, who lived in the wilderness, whose raiment was
of the meanest kind, and whose food was such alone as the desert afford-
ed ; it is not to be supposed that he possessed appropriate vessels for
administering baptism to multitudes by pouring or sprinkling. He,
therefore, seems to have made use of the neighbouring stream." If any
man can believe this reason, I will not envy his faith. On the ground
of improbability he refuses the testimony of the word, yet here he can
believe his own fiction, for which there is neither testimony nor proba-
bility. Why the hoof of an ass would be perfectly sufficient.
But this allegation is not only absurd and fictitious, it is also incon-
sistent with the reason which he has alleged for John's taking up his
abode at Enon. Has he not told us, that the supply of water for the
necessities of men, women, children, and beasts, directed to this locality?
Surely I may retort his own observation. He must have great faith and
a wonderful facility in accommodating his belief to his wishes, who can
believe this!
I have still another complaint against this fiction. Were it ever so
plausible, were it ever so probable, it is utterly valueless, unless it is in
proof from Scripture. The writer mistakes the burden of proof. If it
is not proved that the water was necessary for other purposes, there lies
no objection to the assertion, that it was necessary for baptism. If an
objection is not proved, it is no true objection.
Section V. — With respect to the accounts of the baptism of Christ,
Matt. iii. 6, Mark i. 9, 10, he rests on the fact, that the preposition is
from, not out of. Of what use is this, when we have out of, in the case
of the eunuch? When he translates Mark i. 9, by in Jordan, he mis-
translates. Jesus was baptized into Jordan. This shows not only that
the action of the verb was performed in the water, but that the perform-
ance of it was a putting of the baptized person into the water. Besides,
if the ordinance is performed in the water, what relief does the writer
get from the preposition from, more than out of? If Jesus was in the
water, might it not be said that he came up out of the water, as well as
from the water?
" Laying aside his sandals," says Dr. M., " he might only have stepped
a few inches into the river." What could take him into the river at all,
if he was only to be sprinkled ? What could take him to the edge of
the water ? What could take him to the river ? No rational answer can
ever be given to this, on the ground that sprinkling a few drops of water
is baptism. Is there no misgiving of conscience, as to the sufficiency
of this answer? I could not believe this, should I gain the whole world
by my faith. But the account of the evangelist not merely asserts that
Jesus went into the water, but that, when in the water, he was baptized
or immersed into it.
Section VI. — " The baptism of Paul," Dr. M. asserts, " affords not
the smallest hint or presumption in favour of immersion." If he means,
that the account affords no evidence, unless it is in the word, he says
only what might be true in a thousand instances, without affecting the
374 REPLY TO DR. MILLER.
question. No other evidence but that of the word is necessary in any
instance. If he means, that without evidence, independent of the word
itself, the question cannot be determined, he entertains views of evidence
fundamentally erroneous. When the meaning of a word is ascertained,
by an examination of its occurrences in the language, it may be applied
with the utmost confidence, without a tittle of additional evidence from
context. Very often context affords no confirmation of the true mean-
ing. No word in language affords, in every occurrence of it, evidence
of its meaning from context. I will make this intelligible to every child,
if men will shut their eyes. In reading the expression, "Arise, and be
immersed or dipped," would any Englishman hesitate as to the mode
expressed, because the context affords no evidence, additional to that of
the word ? And what evidence would a person who understood Greek
have needed, in addition to that of the word itself? However, in the
present case, it is not fact that there is no additional evidence from the
context : there is most satisfactory proof, even if the word itself had
been used but once, in all that remains of the Greek language. Baptism
is here said to be a bathing of the person.
" There is no hint that Paul changed his raimant." No more is there
any account from what point the wind blew on the occasion. Shame,
shame, to trifle in this way in opposing the ordinances of God ! How
many thousand accounts of immersion in modern times, when there is
no mention of changing of raimant ! Does Dr. M. really expect, that
in case immersions were practised, the Scriptures must record the chang-
ing of dress ? Where did he find the laying of the sandals aside, which
he lately mentioned ? Is there no evidence that such a man was hanged,
because there is no account whether he wore his ordinary dress, or ob-
tained one for the occasion? There may be honesty in this sort of
reasoning, but there is no logic.
But our author has not yet done with this species of logic. " There
is no account," it seems, " that Paul and Ananias went out of the house
to a neighbouring pond or stream." What need of such information?
When I hear that Dr. M. is immersed in New York, I shall never inquire
whether it was in a river, in a pond, or in a bath. Dr. M., let us have
every thing like evidence ; but let us have no trifling with the word of
the living God.
Adverting to Paul's situation, he asks, " Can it be imagined that a
wise and humane man, in these circumstances, would have had him car-
ried forth and plunged into cold water?" The wisdom and humanity
of Ananias had nothing to do in the matter; he had the express com-
mand of God. If Dr. M. has any charge against the wisdom and
humanity of the institution, no doubt its Author, in due time, will give
him a sufficient answer. I can, however, see nothing in Paul's situation
that would render immersion either dangerous or disagreeable. But
Paul was immersed, whatever Dr. M. may choose to suppose to be the
consequence. I draw a different conclusion. If Paul, in such a situa-
tion, was immersed, clinical sprinkling, the invention of human wisdom,
is never to be a substitute for baptism.
REPLY TO DR. MILLER. 375
Section VII. — The account even of the baptism of the eunuch, does
not convince Dr. M. that immersion was the mode. He tells us, that
" they were travelling, and probably destitute of any convenient vessel
for dipping up a portion of water from the stream ; they both went down
to the water, probably no farther than to its margin, far enough to take
up a small portion of it, to sprinkle or pour on the eunuch."
How can he assert, that probably they went only to the edge of the
water, when the Holy Spirit expressly asserts that they came out of the
water ? Does Dr. M. intend to give the lie to the word of inspiration ?
How could they come out of the water, if they were not in it? This
fact is beyond controversy. But is it not extravagant to suppose that
such a man as the eunuch, on his journey, had no vessel fit to carry as
much water as would sprinkle him with a few drops? One of his
attendants might have brought enough in the hollow of his hand. Such
evasions are ridiculous.
While I admit that the preposition eis may convey to the edge of the
water, as well as into it ; yet I cannot but feel surprised that Dr. M. is
so unfortunate in his proofs. " Jesus went down to Capernaum," surely
does not mean, that he stopped at the edge of the city. He entered into
Capernaum. " Jacob went down into Egypt," does not mean that he
stopped at the borders of the country. " He went down to Antioch," is
a similar example. Instead of proving for the writer, these examples
show the unreasonableness of his doctrine. Would he deserve the name
of a critic, who should argue, that because the preposition in question is
sometimes used when the object in motion goes only to the edge of the
object approached, therefore in the example there is no evidence that
Jesus entered Capernaum, that Jacob went into Egypt, or that Paul
entered Antioch?
Dr. M., I am surprised to find, repeats the objection, that "there is
the same evidence that Philip was plunged, as that the eunuch was."
This was a very shallow observation. There is the same evidence that
both were in the water, but only one of them is said to have been im-
mersed. Their being in the water may be proof that immersion must
have taken place, without proving that both were immersed. It is strange
that wise men will risk the credit of their understanding by such allega-
tions.
Dr. M. concludes his observations on this example, by asserting that the
confidence of the Baptists, in the account of the baptism of the eunuch,
" must be regarded as amounting to a gross imposition on popular cre-
dulity." Dr. M. has done nothing to entitle him to speak so arrogantly.
He has done nothing to diminish our confidence in this example. He
has not entered into the criticism of the question. Our proof that they
were in the water is not only unrefuted, but unassailed by criticism.
We can afford to leave imposition and credulity to those who need them.
Section VIII. — The baptism of Cornelius comes next under the
review of our author. Here again he complains of the absence of hints,
with respect to the " candidates for baptism being led out of the house,
to a river or pool, for the purpose of being dipped." Such information
376 REPLY TO DR. MILLER.
is altogether unnecessary. If they were baptized, they were immersed.
Whether in the house or elsewhere, is nothing to the purpose. But he
can find not only hints, but full evidence on his side. " Who can forbid
water?" he interprets, " Can any man forbid water being brought in a
convenient vessel, to be applied by pouring or sprinkling?" Can any-
thing be more arbitrary and unfounded than this interpretation ? Can
the man who will take this liberty with his documents ever be at a loss
for proof? I will not say, that this is imposition on credulity ; but I
will say, that this is not interpretation. Might I not as well interpret
the passage thus ? " Can any man forbid water to be brought in to fill
a bath for the purpose of immersion V But I scorn such a mode of
interpretation to suit a purpose. The expression has no concern at all
with the mode of the ordinance. The meaning most evidently is, " Can
any one forbid baptism with respect to these persons ?" The passage
determines nothing as to what baptism is, only that water is employed in
the ordinance. If we take the liberty of forging an addition to our
documents, in order to suit our purpose, we cannot pretend to ground
on the Scriptures.
But if this passage affords evidence that the mode of this ordinance
is pouring or sprinkling, and that, too, for an emblematical purpose,
how is it that the author allows that immersion is also a valid mode of
the ordinance? If this is true, immersion cannot be baptism.
Section. IX. — The immersion of the jailer Dr. M. pronounces not
only to be improbable, but impossible. Here now we have an assertion
that gives us an opportunity of estimating Dr. M.'s perspicacity in
weighing evidence, or his candour in representing it. On what ground
does he allege immersion to have been here impossible, or even impro-
bable? " Paul and Silas," he tells us, " were closely confined in prison
when this solemn service was performed." Your documents have not
told you so, Dr. M. They were not now closely confined, nor confined
at all, even although the baptism had been performed in the prison.
What makes immersion impossible, even in the very cell in which they
were closely confined? The man who asserts impossibility as to im-
mersion even on that ground, I charge as unfit to weigh evidence.
Again, when he expounds the bringing of them out, as respecting the
outer part of the prison, and not the outside of it, granting this to be
true, what makes immersion impossible in that place ? No thinking being
can allege impossibility. But if my cause required it, I would not grant
this. Dr. M. must prove it before it can serve him. The burden of proof
lies on the objector. If it is not proved that out refers to the outer prison,
and not to outside the prison, it cannot stand as an objection. If the word
out will explain as referable to either, I am at liberty to explain it in the
way that the word employed to designate the ordinance demands.
But that out refers to outside the prison is evident from the fact, that
we find them immediately in the jailer's house. Paul preached the
Gospel to all in the jailer's house before any of them were baptized.
There is not a particle of evidence that the baptism was in the jail. It
was after this they were bathed ; the bathing, then, must have been
REPLY TO DR. MILLER. 377
done in the house : and if they could be bathed in the house, could not
the jailer and his family be bathed in baptism in the same bath ? The
performance of bathing implies the existence of a bath.
But had the jailer been as destitute of baths as John the Baptist was
of vessels for sprinkling, what could prevent them from going to the
Strymon? Must they wait for permission from the magistrates ? Not a
moment. In civil things Christians are to obey, but in the things of
God they are to have no respect to the authority of man. Dr. M. speaks
of Paul and Silas as not being " dishonest enough to steal out of prison
by night !" Is so slavish a sentiment worthy of an American citizen ?
Is so Erastian a sentiment worthy of a Christian, even in Turkey ?
No man can carry the duty of civil obedience farther than I do ; but
I would frown defiance in the face of Majesty were it to presume to
dictate in the things of Christ. According to Dr. M., Peter was guilty
of stealing out of prison, when he was released by the angel, and the
angel was guilty of a treasonable rescue.
The refusal to quit the prison next morning was not out of obedience
to civil authority, but from a just and indignant sense of their own
violated rights. How could it be for conscience' sake that they refused
to quit the prison, when the magistrates sent an express order by their
officers, urging them to go ? It is astonishing that any writer should
venture such observations.
Equally astonishing it is that Dr. M. should allege the jailer's alarm
on account of his own responsibility. Was not this alarm previous to
his faith and baptism? Had he any such fears afterwards? Besides,
if it was contrary to Paul's duty to baptize the jailer's family at the
river, it was equally contrary to his duty to accept hospitality in the
jailer's house. If they had a right to quit the prison, they had a right
to go to the river. What a scrupulous conscience has Dr. M. ! I sup-
pose if the government of the United States were to forbid him to
preach, he would never open his mouth to proclaim the glad tidings of
salvation. Am I to believe that any man really feels these scruples, or
am I to think that they are mere evasions? Were I to use such argu-
ments, I must confess it would be from a design of imposing on popular
credulity.
With respect to the possibility of immersion in the prison, Dr. M.
says, " He who can believe this must be ready to adopt any supposition,
however extravagant, for the sake of an hypothesis." This shows the
distinguished writer to be unacquainted with the fundamental laws of
controversy. We have neither to prove nor suppose anything with
respect to the way in which immersion was possible. If the word is
proved to mean immersion, whenever there was a baptism, there must
have been a way of immersion. Any objection that is alleged against
the possibility of this must be in proof. Granting that the baptism was
performed in the jail, without any mention of a bath, I should have
every confidence of immersion, equally as if I had been told that there
was a bath, or a reservoir. Suppose we read in English that the Bap-
tists immersed a person in a jail, would any man act so ridiculously as
to deny the immersion unless the bath were spoken of? Why, then,
48
378 REPLY TO DR. MILLER.
should the mention of a bath, or a pond, or of a river, be necessary as
to the examples in Scripture? However, I can prove that there was a
bath in the jailer's house, because that Paul and Silas were bathed ; but
I refuse to give proof as a matter of right : it is all mere grace. I will
never consent to prove, when proof lies on the other side. What does
this writer mean by an hypothesis? We interpret language by its funda-
mental laws: we do not, invent hypotheses. If the word does not signify
immerse, we will invent no hypothesis to provide for immersion. But
while I have provided a bath in the house, I am inclined to think that
the document proves that the baptism was without. Paul preached in
the jailer's house, and, after the baptism, was brought back to the house,
which appears to show that the baptism was either at the Strymon, or
some other place out of doors. But I care not where the baptism took
place, and I will pledge myself for nothing on this head.
Section X. — Dr. M. complains of the Baptists, that they consider
their mode as essential to the ordinance. This complaint, surely, is
absurd. If the meaning of the word is immerse, is not immersion essential
to immersion? Can pouring or sprinkling, $u\ft\ a command to immerse?
Especially if immersion is emblematical, must it not be essential to have
the emblem? We grant that our opponents are sincere; that they
believe that they are fulfilling the command of Christ ; but, if our view
of the meaning of the word is just, we should be palpably self-condemned,
were we to say that pouring, or sprinkling is baptism. In like manner,
if any man believes that the word signifies to pour, or sprinkle, and that
the ordinance is emblematical in such a sense, he cannot consistently
admit that any other mode is baptism. Of all the writers I have ever
met, Dr. M. is, on this point, the most inconsistent. He makes the mode
emblematical, yet he allows that any mode is baptism. He has two
favourite modes, yet he does not say that either of them is appointed.
He makes the word signify immerse, pour, sprinkle, dye, wash, and
every application of water; yet I cannot gather from him what meaning
he gives it in this ordinance. He tells us that " The inspired writers
did not deem the mode of applying water in baptism an essential matter;
and did not think it necessary to state it precisely." What, then, is the
meaning of the word ? It cannot be pour, or sprinkle, for this is as
precise as immersion. If it expresses no mode, why does he make the
mode emblematical ? Has he got a patent to manufacture emblems for
the ordinances of Christ? Here he avows the authority of will-worship,
and considers it lawful and edifying to conform Christian rites to emblem-
atical representations, not annexed to them by the Head of the church.
This is as pure a specimen of Popery as ever was manufactured at Rome.
As, in its common use, Dr. M. makes this word signify every mode,
and every application of water, without saying what is its meaning, I
must believe that in reference to this ordinance he gives it the same
extent. Now, nothing can be more extravagant than this. Whatever
number of meanings the word may be supposed to have, it can have
only one in reference to this ordinance, whether that may be general or
specific. If it has a general signification in reference to baptism, it can-
REPLY TO DR. MILLER. 379
not also have a specific signification. If it has one specific signification,
it cannot have another. I really think criticism wasted on such reason-
ing as this.
Section XI. — The following extract shows that the clearest and most
overwhelming proof of the original mode of this ordinance, even when
admitted, would not change the practice of our opponents. Dr. M.
arrogates the anti-christian authority of changing the mode of the ordi-
nances of Christ, according to expediency. " Even if it could be proved
(which we know it cannot be) that the mode of baptism adopted in the
time of Christ and his apostles was that of immersion, yet, if that
method of administering the ordinance were not significant of some
truth, which the other modes cannot represent, we are plainly at liberty
to regard it as a non-essential circumstance, from which we may depart
when expediency requires it, as we are all wont to do in other cases,
even with respect to positive institutions." Popery, I see, is not confined
to Rome. But the church of Rome is the only consistent body that
claims the authority of changing the laws of God. If the author
believes his own doctrine, why has he employed so much straining and
torture on the documents that respect this ordinance ? The church of
Rome claims a right to change the mode, and it boldly confesses that it
has done so. Dr. M. alleges that we are all wont to do the same thing. For
myself, I deny the charge in every instance. I would as soon attempt
to regulate the changes of the moon, or alter the course of nature, as
make the smallest modification on an ordinance of Christ. This prin-
ciple is the very foundation of the anti-christian system : this principle
I abhor with the most perfect abhorrence. Dr. M., no doubt, is con-
scientious in this; but is not the Pope equally conscientious, while, with
more grace, he exercises the same privilege to a greater extent?
"For example," says he, "the Lord's supper was, no doubt, originally
instituted with unleavened bread," &c. Now the cases are not at all
parallel. Unleavened bread was never appointed. It was used merely
on the occasion because it was the bread that was present. Indeed, it
is not even said that it was unleavened bread ; we know that it was so,
because there was no other. Is that anything akin to a command to
baptize? If this word signifies to immerse, then immersion is the very
thing commanded. A good conscience is a good thing; but the best
conscience is the better for a little discrimination. Nothing that was at
first a part of the Lord's supper can ever cease to be a part of it. Had
unleavened bread been here enjoined, unleavened bread must be used to
the end of the world. The same observation applies to the posture at
the Lord's supper. Had Christ enjoined kneeling or sitting, reclining
or standing, that posture would be always binding. As it is, posture is
no part of the institution, and it is anti-christian to make it necessary.
Dr. M. next considers the difficulties attending immersion in many
cases ; and contrasts with this the ease and convenience of sprinkling,
or pouring. This might be very much to the point, after a proclamation
from heaven that we might choose what pleases us best. But, in deter-
mining what is the law of Christ, such speculations are worse than
380 REPLY TO DR. MILLER.
useless : they are an exhortation to disobedience and rebellion. To be
immersed every day in my life would be no sacrifice to me ; shall I
complain about one immersion in my whole life ?
He speaks of some districts so parched that it would be difficult to
find a natural stream or pool. What makes either a stream or a pool
necessary. There is no inhabited country in which a disciple of Christ
may not procure as much water as will immerse him once in his life.
He speaks of a siege. If a man cannot get bread, is he guilty in dying
of hunger ? If a disciple cannot get water, is he guilty for not attend-
ing to baptism? Baptism is an ordinance of Christ — an edifying ordi-
nance of Christ, but it is superstition that makes it essential to salvation.
He speaks of cold countries, where rivers are locked up with ice. Is
there any habitable country where the water is all turned into ice ? Is
there any country in which ice may not be melted by fire ? How per-
versely opposed is the human mind to the mind of God, when the
disciple of Christ can allege such evasions to relieve him from his com-
mandments!
He speaks of health. When medical skill pronounces it dangerous,
I will not urge it : nor will I urge a sick man to go to the assembly of
the saints. He speaks about old, feeble ministers. This is young, strong
superstition. If ministers are old and feeble, let them do what they are
fit to do ; let others take the water. The churches planted by the apostles
were not Puseyites. No wonder that the Oxford pestilence has spread
so rapidly : there is almost in all men a predisposition to the disease.
Section XII. — Dr. M. tells us, that in the third, fourth, and following
centuries, the custom was to baptize naked. Where is the logic of this ?
It is Satan's logic to deter the disciples of Christ from following their
Master. Although this logic will have no effect upon a sound head, it
may not be without its effect upon a corrupt heart. Dr. M. does not
pretend to say that the apostles baptized naked. Of what use, then, is
his observation ? Is church history a ground of proof to us ? Let him
admonish the Puseyites on this subject, and they will very likely return
to the old edifying practice. This practice was a human invention, as
Dr. Hall himself confesses, to make the ordinance of Christ more edify-
ing, just as Dr. M. annexes an edifying emblem to pouring and
sprinkling, while he confesses that Christ has not appointed the emblem.
The above practice, then, has no charms for us, but it must be very
edifying to Dr. M.'s turn of mind. The Christians who practised this
" thought it better represented the putting off the old man, and also the
nakedness of Christ on the cross." A perfect parallel to Dr. M.'s edify-
ing emblems of pouring and sprinkling. For a like edifying purpose
the early Christians practised trine immersion. Is this proof that trine
immersion is proper ? A good conscience is a good thing ; but a good
conscience may be married to very bad logic.
"Besides," says Dr. M., "if the principle for which our Baptist
brethren contend be correct; if the immersion of the whole body be
essential to Christian baptism ; and if the thing signified be the cleansing
and purifying of the individual by an ablution which must of necessity
REPLY TO DR. MILLER. 381
extend to the whole person ; it would really seem that performing this
ceremony divested of all clothing, is essential to its emblematic mean-
ing." To this I reply : 1. The principle here represented is not the
ground on which we rest immersion. We rest it on the command of
Christ; not on views of peculiar fitness for emblematic representation.
Its emblematic meaning affords us edification, but is not the ground of
our obedience. 2. The immersion of the whole body is essential to
baptism, not because nothing but immersion can be an emblem of puri-
fication, but because immersion is the thing commanded, and because
that, without immersion, there is no emblem of death, burial, and resur-
rection, which are in the emblem equally with purification. Had no
emblem but that of purification been intended in this ordinance, we do
not say that immersion would be either essential or preferable. In a
partial ablution there might be an emblem of purification, but no emblem
of death, burial, and resurrection. If the whole person must be buried,
the whole person must, of course, be washed, when the burial is in
water. 3. Dr. M. ought to know that nakedness is not necessary for
emblematical purification. Were not the Israelites sprinkled with their
garments on ? Besides, are not Christians said to wash their garments,
as well as themselves, in the blood of the Lamb ? Even in bathing for
health or cleanliness, it is common to use a bathing dress. Nakedness
is necessary neither for the emblem nor for obedience to the command.
It was the invention of the same spirit that has changed all the ordi-
nances of Chiist.
He speaks of the propriety of applying the water " to that part of the
body which is an epitome of the whole person." Who has commanded
this? Has Christ given authority to add to his ordinance by human
wisdom ? This is the prerogative of the man of sin. Is not this manu-
facture from the same factory that applies the holy unction to certain
parts of the body for emblematic purposes? Nothing can be more evi-
dent than that, as no part of the body is by inspiration spoken of as hav-
ing the water of baptism applied to it, the whole body must be immersed.
"■ Besides," says the author, " let me appeal to our Baptist brethren,
by asking, if they verily believe that the primitive and apostolic mode
of administering baptism was by immersion, and that this immersion
was by entire nakedness, how can they dare, upon their principles, to
depart one iota from that mode?" I will not say that there is anything
intentionally unfair in this ; but I will say, that the reasoning is unfair.
He here speaks as if he had proved, and that the Baptists believe, that
naked baptism was an apostolic practice. Neither of these is true. He
stated merely the practice of the third, fourth, and immediately succeed-
ing centuries. And why does he assume that the Baptists believe that
naked baptism was the practice of the apostles ? Why urge them on
this ground ? Is the practice of the third, fourth, and immediately suc-
ceeding centuries, to be taken as the primitive and apostolic practice?
I can see no way to vindicate both his sincerity and his logic.
From these difficulties he is convinced that immersion "cannot be of
Divine appointment; at any rate, that it cannot be universally binding
on the church of God." Whether it is a Divine appointment depends on
382 REPLY TO DR. MILLER.
evidence, and is not at all influenced by the existence of difficulties.
But what a sentiment is here expressed ! A Divine appointment, yet not
universally binding ! ! ! Then we cannot have a pope too soon. If
Divine appointments may be annulled, infallibility is necessary to annul
them. Who can put a limit to the extent to which this principle may be
carried? May it not set aside the ordinance of baptism itself, and all
other ordinances? May it not appoint as many other ordinances as it
may think fit? Let Dr. M. reflect on the denunciation against those
who take on them to abrogate any of God's appointments. " Whoso-
ever, therefore, shall abrogate one of these least commandments, and
teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven."
Great Jesus, enable me to suffer martyrdom, rather than give me up to
utter a sentiment so dishonourable to thy sovereignty ! Dr. M. avows a
right to change ordinances of Christ, and to confer on them an emblem-
atic meaning, not in the appointment of the Institutor. What is popery,
if this is not popery? To practise immersion conscientiously, even
although a Divine appointment, he designates as servility and supersti-
tion. Servility and superstition ! What a prostitution of language !
Servility, to obey a Divine appointment ! Superstition, to practise what
God commands ! This is so monstrous in sentiment, so paradoxical in
phraseology, that I dare not trust myself to say more on it.
" We may say of this ordinance," says the author, " as our Lord said
of the sabbath, Baptism was made for man, and not man for baptism."
I adopt the language with my whole heart. We may say this with
respect to every ordinance. But does this imply that we may abrogate,
alter, or modify, either baptism or the sabbath? Let us apply this prin-
ciple, then, to the sabbath, which Dr. M. applies to baptism. " The
keeping of the sabbath has great inconveniences in many places : either,
then, it is not a Divine appointment, or, at any rate, it is not universally
binding." Is this Dr. M.'s theology ? Many persons will shudder at it,
when applied to the sabbath, who may not be frightened when it is
applied to an ordinance against which they are prejudiced. How is it,
that such a man as Dr. M. can assume it as a principle, that if an ordi-
nance is made for the good of man by Divine appointment, men must
have the right of changing it? Is man fitter than God, to judge what
is best for man ? Is not the fact, that God's ordinances are all designed
for the good of his people, the strongest reason to abide strictly by them?
I complain, that in this work there is a want of accurate thinking, of
just reasoning, and of sound principles. In justice to truth, I. must say
so, while it grieves me to be obliged to give it expression.
" Where," says he, " a particular mode of complying with a religious
observance would be, in may cases, ' a yoke of bondage,' and one, too,
for which no Divine warrant could be pleaded, it would argue the very
slavery of superstition, to enforce that mode of the observance as essential
to a regular standing in the visible family of Christ." Here my com-
plaint of a want of accurate thinking is renewed. If a yoke is of God's
making, must it not be worn ? If it is not of God's appointment, does
any one require it to be put on ? Was not circumcision a yoke? Had
any man a right to abrogate or neglect it ? We are commanded to
REPLY TO DR. MILLER. 383
give our lives for Christ, rather than deny him. Has any man a right
to refuse this yoke? But there is no yoke in baptism, although my
defence of it will not deign to repel the charge. It is God's appoint-
ment : I call on Christians, on their allegiance, to obey.
That immersion is a Divine appointment tin's argument assumes, for
it pleads for a right to change a Divine appointment. Now is it the
slavery of superstition to obey a Divine appointment I Superstition and
slavery must respect such religious ordinances only as are of human
appointment. It is absurd — it is monstrous — it is blasphemous, to
speak of obedience to a Divine appointment as the slavery of superstition.
But if it is a Divine appointment, how can it be also " a yoke of
bondage," " for which no Divine warrant could be pleaded?" If no
Divine warrant can be pleaded, it cannot be a Divine appointment. But
there is still another absurdity in this. On the supposition that no
Divine warrant can be pleaded for immersion, does any one make it
essential to baptism? Surely it is only on the ground that there is a
Divine warrant, that it is deemed essential, or even in any degree obli-
gatory. Why, then, does this learned writer beat the air ? Why does
he reason with people who never have existed ?
Section XIII. — Dr. M. comes now to Rom. vi. 1. He observes,
that we believe and insist that baptism and immersion are synonymous
terms. We believe and insist that immersion is the meaning of the
word translated baptism, but we do not believe that baptism, as an Eng-
lish word, is synonymous with immersion. As an English term it
respects not mode at all, but refers to what is considered the rite, apart
from the mode. In English, baptism and immersion are anything rather
than synonymous.
Believing and insisting as above, we are represented by him as taking
for granted that the phrase, " buried with him in baptism," refers to the
resemblance between baptism and burial. Now we believe that this
phrase implies this resemblance, not by taking it for granted, but as
the necessary import of the expression. When our Lord says, " This
cup is the new testament in my blood," is it taking anything for granted,
to assert that the expression implies that there is a resemblance between
the wine and the blood of Christ? We take nothing for granted but
what is either in proof, or is self-evident.
He observes, that " in the general interpretation of the figure, many
paedo-baptists are agreed with us, and have thus not a little confirmed
the confidence of anti-paedo-baptists in their cause." Is not this a hint,
that even though paedo-baptists should agree with us in this, it is bad
policy to acknowledge it? On the other hand I ask, are there no paedo-
baptists, who, from a fear of increasing the confidence of their opponents,
are willing to dispute every thing? Excessive candour is not, as far as
I have observed, the fault of any of the late writers on the subject. Tt
would hardly surprise me if some of them would call on us to prove the
existence of the river Jordan. It is quite true that all eminent scholars,
whatever may be their practice, if they speak at all on the subject, will
confess as plainly as prudence will permit them, that we have both the
384 REPLY TO DR. MILLER.
meaning of the word and the inspired explanation of the mode in our
favour. But even this we produce not as a confirmation of our own
faith, but as a proof that our view of the emblem is irresistible to our
candid opponents. Who is it that does not perceive that Dr. M. feels
this affliction ? But the thing is so plain in itself, that if all the men on
earth should deny it, I could not think of it otherwise than as I do. And
if all psedo-baptists should be convinced by myself, I could not receive
the smallest additional confidence. Dr. Campbell, indeed, observes, that
in a long process of abstract reasoning, even in matters of demonstra-
tion, a person will find additional confidence by the agreement of others
whose judgment he respects. With this I fully agree. But there is here
no intricate or tedious process of thought. Any one who understands
the words, will be able to discern the assertion as clearly as Newton or
Locke. Buried with Christ by baptism, must mean that baptism has a
resemblance to Christ's burial. Were the angel Gabriel to hesitate,
I would order him to school. In many cases of error I can see the
plausible ground on which it rests ; but here I can perceive no den in
which deception can be concealed.
" The apostle," says the writer, " then adverts to the significance of
baptism, which being the ordinance which seals our introduction into
the family of Christ, may be considered as exhibiting both the first
principles of Gospel truth, and the first elements of Christian character."
Now what a mass of lumber is this! Does the apostle say anything
about baptism as being the ordinance which seals our introduction into
the family of Christ? Does he say anything about it as a seal of intro-
duction, exhibiting an emblem of first principles? Baptism is not here,
spoken of as a seal of introduction, nor as a seal of anything ; it is
spoken of as importing in its nature an emblem that believers cannot
continue in sin that grace may abound. The emblem shows them to be
dead, buried, and risen with Christ. How, then, can they continue in
sin? This death, burial, and resurrection, take place in baptism: if
so, they take place emblematically.
" He then infers," says the author, " that since baptism has so imme-
diate a reference to the death of Christ, it must, by consequence, be
connected also with his resurrection." Immediate connexion with his
resurrection ! This cloud of words is to hide the sun. What connexion
has baptism with Christ's burial ? Is it not because it is a burial with
Christ ? What other reference is either stated or hinted ? But there is
no such reference in the language of the apostle, as Dr. M. represents.
The apostle does not infer that since baptism has an immediate reference
to the death of Christ, it must, by consequence, be connected also with
the resurrection. It is a fact that baptism actually refers as well to the
resurrection of Christ as to his death. But the apostle states the two
things as facts, and does not infer one of them from the other. There
might have been an ordinance having reference to the burial of Christ,
without having any reference to his resurrection. The language of
the apostle does not infer, but it asserts. " For if we have been
planted," &,c.
" The obvious design of the apostle," says Dr. M., " is to illustrate the
REPLY TO DR. MILLER. 385
character and obligations of believers, from the circumstance that they
are in a certain respect conformed to Christ's death ; that as he died for
sin, so they are dead, or are under an obligation to be dead to sin, that
is, they are holy, or are by their profession obliged to be holy." If any
man is now ignorant of the obvious design of the apostle in this passage,
he would not deserve pity were he not to see the sun at noon-day. Yet
after reading, and reading, and reading, I am so far from knowing the
obvious design of the apostle better than I did before, that I can hardly
venture to say that I understand the writer himself. He adds explana-
tion to explanation, till his meaning is buried in explanation, if he
himself will not be buried in baptism. In what part of the passage does
the writer find the apostle illustrating the character and the obligation
of believers? My eyes are so bad, that I cannot discover it any where
in the documents. The apostle himself states, that the believer cannot
live in sin ; from something that is implied in his baptism. Nor is the
believer's conformity to Christ merely a conformity to his death, but to
his death, burial, and resurrection, as they are exhibited in baptism.
Believers are buried with Christ by baptism, and it is by baptism also
they die with him. The very reference that is here made to death,
depends necessarily on burial. Death, burial, and resurrection, are all
expressly in the emblem. And what, according to this writer, is the
conformity to Christ's death ? Why, Christ died for sin, and believers
die to sin. What sort of conformity is this ? There is no likeness at all
in this conformity; it is only a mere play upon words. But what is
this dying to sin? Why, it is "being under obligations to be dead."
Under obligations to be dead ! What sort of security is this that they
will not continue in sin ? Do obligations to duty afford a security of
performance? Writers who take on them to direct the public, are
surely under obligation to reason connectedly. But what sort of an
explanation of death is an obligation to be dead? To die, and to be
under obligation to be dead, are surely very different things. Surely it
must be a desperate cause that puts wise men under the necessity of
employing such interpretations of the word of God. The sense in which
they were dead to sin, must insure their not living in it, otherwise there
is no meaning in the apostle's reasoning.
Having expounded the death to sin as being under obligation to be
dead, he expounds both as being holy ; and holy he further expounds as
being by their profession, obliged to be holy. Is an obligation to be
holy the same as holy ? The one does not even presuppose the other.
But death to sin, and holiness, are two distinct ideas, though they always
co-exist. Every thing is wrong in this most unhappy commentary. To
what shifts are men driven, who will force the word of God, to silence
its testimony in condemnation of their errors !
Speaking of the death to sin, he says, " This is what was signified by
baptism." How does baptism signify death, but as it is an emblem of it?
And how is the emblem of death in baptism, but as baptism is a burial?
"And so," he continues, " believers were baptized into Christ's death:
not that baptism was a symbol of death, or the state of the dead ; for
water, or a washing in water, never was a svmbol of this." This expla-
49
386 REPLY TO DR. MILLER.
nation palpably contradicts the text. The apostle expressly says that
believers " are buried with Christ by baptism into death." But Dr. M.
gives a reason why baptism cannot be a symbol of burial. Now what
is this reason ? Let all the ends of the earth hear it. Because water,
or washing with^water, was never a symbol of burial ! May not a man
be buried in water as well as washed in it ? How many millions are
actually buried in the seas? There are two distinct emblems in baptism:
one of purification by water, another of death, burial, and resurrection,
by immersion. It is shameful for such a man as Dr. "M. to allege the
impossibility of there being in baptism an emblem of burial, because
washing in water is not an emblem of burial. Why, Dr. M., will you
blind your own eyes? Why will you teach the disciples of Christ to
disannul the commandments of God by your forced explanation ?
" Now," says he, " being dead, or in a state of death to sin, is the
same thing as to be spiritually purified, or made holy." Here it is
obvious that the writer has no definite views of this passage. The
Christian's death to sin he had formerly expounded as " being under
obligations to be dead :" now it is " being in a state of death." Which
of these is the writer's real sentiment? But to be dead to sin is not the
same thing as holiness, or spiritual purification : it respects our union
with Christ in his death for our sins, and has no reference to personal
holiness. But whatever this death is, it is a death that is exhibited in
baptism, of which immersion in water is the emblem. Believers are
here said not only to be dead, but to die, to be buried, and to rise
in baptism. No sophistry about the kind of death meant, can disturb
this.
" And this is the very thing," says the writer, " that baptism, coming
in the place of ablutions under the former economy, is exactly adapted
to signify." No doubt that the application of water under the law and
under the Gospel has the same emblem of purification. But does this
imply that a burial in water might not, in the new dispensation, be an
emblem of Christ's burial, as well as of purification ? Shall I be obliged
to teach this lesson again ? But the fact is that baptism, as far as it is
here expounded, refers to death, burial, and resurrection, without any
mention of purification, or allusion to it. In other places, it is referred
to as emblematic of purification, without any reference to the emblem
of death, burial, and resurrection. Baptism is here spoken of, not with
respect to the water, but with respect to the mode. In this there are
death, burial, and resurrection.
" The sum of the apostle's illustration," says the author, " so far as
the point before us is concerned, is simply this ; — that in baptism, as a
rite emblematical of moral purification, Christians profess to be baptized
into the death of Christ, as well as into (or into the hope of) his resurrec-
tion ; that they are dead and buried in respect to sin, that is, in a moral
and spiritual sense."
As a rite of moral purification ! How can such an idea be contained
in the sense of a passage in which purification is not even mentioned?
Baptism is, indeed, a rite emblematical of moral purification, but it is
not as emblematical of this that it is here considered : it is here an
REPLY TO DR. MILLER. 387
emblem of burial. When baptism is considered with respect to purifi-
cation, it is referred to as a washing — not a death, or burial. Even as
respects the change in the mind of a believer, the emblem of dying with
respect to sin, and that of purifying, are quite different. Death con-
siders sin as destroyed ; purification considers it as washed away. In
this passage, we have death, burial, and resurrection, and they are all
in emblem in baptism. We are buried with Christ by means of baptism.
This burial, surely, is a burial in emblem. The writer never attempts
to expound the phrase " buried with him by baptism into death." Can
we be buried by baptism and in baptism, if in baptism there is no
burial ?
But our exposition of this passage, it seems, has another fault. " The
burial of Christ was by no means such as the friends of this exposition
commonly suppose." Commonly suppose ! What is this to the pur-
pose ? Does he deny that Christ was buried ? Does he think that an
emblem of burial must perfectly correspond to Christ's burial? He
might as well require us to eat literal flesh and blood in the Lord's
supper, in order to have a better emblem. This is as foolish as it is
perverse. A dramatic representation, and an emblem, are things of a
very different nature. Christ was buried ; and the believer is, by bap-
tism, buried with him. There is no need that there should be a closer
resemblance between the mode of the rite, and the entombing of Christ,
than that each should be called a burial. Dr. M. has not profited by
the lesson I gave Mr. Ewing on this subject. Why, then, has he not
answered me? Was not Jonah in the whale's belly an emblem of
Christ in the heart of the earth ? And is not a believer's baptism as
like Christ's burial, as was Jonah's in the belly of the fish ?
" The Gazette de France," says one of our newspapers, " contains
the details of a frightful accident to fifty workmen employed on the for-
tifications of Mount Valerien, who had been buried by the falling in of
a large bank of earth." Here, says the critic, there can be no likeness to
interment. The bank fell in of itself, and the persons on whom it fell
are covered as they stand at work. Buried here does not signify interred,
but merely killed. All that the Gazette means to say, is, that the falling
bank killed the workmen.
With respect to Col. ii. 12, the author says, that in baptism the
" putting away of the sins of the flesh" is " emblematically represented :
as a man dead and buried is cut off from all temporal connexions and
indulgences." But how can baptism, as a washing, be considered as a
death and burial? Besides, it is in baptism that this burial takes place.
Buried in baptism. There must, then, be an emblem of burial.
Section XIV. — Dr. M. crosses the Red Sea a second time ; but as
I do not find that he has made any additional discoveries, it is scarcely
necessary to give him a second dip. He finds no immersion. Well, I
have found what I have justified as being called an immersion, by the
common usage of language. In order to get an immersion in the pas-
sage referred to, I am not obliged to make the smallest addition to the
text. Dr. M., however, is very willing to allow that there may have
388 REPLY TO DR. MILLER.
been spray from the sea, and a few straggling drops from the cloud,
though the text says nothing of either. Is it not strange partiality that
will not accept an explanation according to the meaning of the word,
justified by similar usage, and will avail itself of things that exist only
in imagination? Why does not Dr. M. tell us what is the thing that is
here called baptism in the cloud and in the sea? My way on every
subject of interpretation, is first to ascertain the meaning of the word
employed to designate the object, then to see how this meaning can
apply.
Section XV. — Dr. M. dismisses the argument from 1 Pet. iii. 20, 21,
on the ground that there was no immersion of Noah and his family.
With as great propriety the learned gentleman may deny that a man in
a tomb is buried, because he is covered with a coffin. What ! Noah
not immersed, when buried in the waters of the flood? Are there no
bounds to perverseness ? Will men say every thing rather than admit
the mode of an ordinance of Christ, which is contrary to the command-
ments of men ? " Further," says the author, " that immersion is not
necessary in baptism ; and that to insist upon it, as indispensable, is
superstition, appears from the indisputable fact, that both the significance
and the effect of baptism are to be considered as depending, not on the
physical influence of water, or upon the quantity of it employed, but on its
symbolical meaning, and on the blessing of God upon its application as a
symbol." Here, as almost every where else, I find this writer remark-
ably deficient as a reasoner. There are, in this extract, almost as many
faults as there are lines. 1. He grounds the non-essentiality of immer-
sion, on the fact that " the significance of baptism depends not on the
physical influence of water." This implies that God could not make
immersion, or any other mode, necessary to an ordinance, without
making the significance of the ordinance depend on the physical influ-
ence of the water. This is absurd. The mode of the application of
water has nothing to do with its physical influence. 2. This supposes
that we contend for mode, as it respects quantity of water. We hold
that there is nothing in quantity, if it is sufficient to immerse. What
will bury the believer is as good as the Southern Ocean. The dispute
is not about the greater virtue of a large quantity of water, but about
the mode as a command of God, and an emblem of burial with Christ.
3. This directly asserts that the significance of baptism depends not on
the physical influence of water ; but a part of its significance does depend
on the physical influence of water. Water is an emblem of purification
from sin, because its physical influence is to purify. 4. The author
here tells us, that the significance of baptism depends on its symbolical
meaning ! What is the amount of this ? It is, that its significance
depends on its significance. Is not its significance its symbolical mean-
ing ? Is not its symbolical meaning its significance ? 5. This supposes
that immersion cannot have a symbolical meaning. We practise im-
mersion because it is commanded ; but we hold it to be commanded
because of its symbolical meaning. This makes it still more essential.
6 This supposes that it is not necessary to obey God in the manner of
REPLY TO DR. MILLER. 389
doing anything, except that manner is symbolical. This is teaching
rebellion against God. 7. This designates strict obedience to the forms
that God prescribes as being superstitious, unless these forms are sym-
bolical. This is an odd kind of superstition. 8. This mistakes the
nature of superstition. A mistake in interpreting a law of God, with
practice accordingly, is not superstition, though it is error. 9. What
does the author mean by the effect of baptism ? I wish to know what
amount of Puseyism the writer holds. Is there anything to be expected
from the performance of any rite, but the blessing of obedience and the
edification conveyed by the Spirit through it? 10. Have we any right
to expect the blessing of obedience, when Ave do not obey ? Have we
any right to expect the blessing of edification through the Spirit, when
we reject the symbol appointed to convey it? If Christ has appointed
immersion, can we look for his blessing on a different observance ? If
immersion is a symbol, can we expect a blessing on a rite which rejects
the symbol ? Water, no doubt, is a symbol, but it is only a part of the
symbol of this ordinance. God, no doubt, will pardon the ignorance of
his people ; but I have never seen the Scripture which warrants us to
expect the blessing of obedience to the commandments of God, on the
observance of the ordinances of man. When the Lord's supper was
abused, Paul would not give it the name of the ordinance. To alter or
modify the ordinances of Christ, is anti-christian arrogance; though
great divines may think it not only harmless, but a praiseworthy thing.
Section XVI. — Dr. M tells us that Protestants consider the stress
that Roman Catholics lay on rites, " as superstitious and dangerous."
There is great confusion of thought in this observation. To lay stress,
as to salvation, even on the ordinances of God, is to turn away from
the Gospel; but to observe them most strictly is the duty of every
Christian. To observe rites not of Divine appointment, is an abomina-
tion to God : this is the thing in which consistent Protestants blame
Roman Catholics, as superstitious. They are never charged as super-
stitious for the most exact observance of any of the laws of God. To
make the observation applicable, the parallel must run thus : As we
call Roman Catholics superstitious, because they rigidly practise all the
rites of the church, and lay on them the stress of salvation, so if any one
will scrupulously practise every ordinance of God, he is superstitious,
and lays on them the stress of his salvation. Is this a just parallel ?
If Roman Catholics are superstitious because they observe as doctrines
the commandments of men, are we superstitious because we most scru-
pulously observe the ordinances of God? Must we show our liberty by
plunging into licentiousness? Must we sin, thatjwe may prove that
grace abounds? This is the spirit of the reasoning of this author.
Shall we take the liberty of disobeying what God commands, in order
to show that we are not saved by our obedience to his commands ?
There are very many of the observations of this writer which have this
dangerous tendency. "We believe," says he, "that no external ordi-
nance has any power in itself," &c. I believe the same thing. What
then? Shall we teach Christians to neglect the external rites appointed
390 REPLY TO DR. MILLER.
by God, or to alter or modify them at pleasure, in order to show that
we believe that there is no power in the ordinances themselves? If this
is not antinomianism, I have never met a specimen of it. If immersion
is of Divine appointment, to argue that it is not necessary, because to
make it necessary is to lay stress on ordinances, is directly to turn the
grace of God into licentiousness. If it is not of Divine appointment,
then it is absurd to oppose it on the ground that no external ordinance
has any power in itself. Nothing can relieve Dr. M. He tell us again,
" There is no disposition in depraved human nature more deeply in-
wrought, or more necessarily operative, than the disposition to rely upon
something done by us for securing the Divine favour." I most cordially
agree with this statement ; nothing can be more true. But, as it
stands here, it is most dangerously erroneous. It stands as a warrant to
neglect what God has appointed, in order to avoid a legal spirit. Must
I plunge into antinomianism with Dr. M. to show that I do not look for
salvation by my exactness in following the ordinances of Christ? What
other tendency can this observation have, than to induce the disciples
of Christ to neglect the commandments of God, that they may show that
they do not depend on works of law for their salvation ? I have never
read any work of a more dangerous tendency than this, from a professor
of the true Gospel of God.
On the supposition that the benefit of the ordinance depended on the
physical influence of water, he says, that it would " be wise to insist on
a rigorous adherence to that form." Pray, Dr. M. is it not enough that
God has commanded that mode ? And, on the supposition that he has
not commanded that mode, it is not insisted on.
But Dr. M. does not here draw the proper inference. He argues, that
as the benefit depends not on the mode, the mode may be changed. In
like manner, if the benefit depends not on the physical nature of water,
the water may be changed. So Sir Walter Scott's Moslems in the
desert observed their ablutions with sand. "In an instant each Moslem
cast himself from his horse, turned towards Mecca, and performed with
sand an emblem of their ablutions, which were elsewhere required to be
made with water." Christians, then, in changing the water in baptism
for sand, in a case of necessity, are justified by the followers of the pro-
phet of Mecca !
" The benefit," he says, " is the result solely of a Divine blessing on a
prescribed and striking emblem." Do we teach otherwise? Do we
teach sacramental efficacy ? Do we hold that the benefit of immersion
depends on the mode without the blessing of God ? This is idle reason-
ing. But what is the prescribed emblem? It is both water and mode —
purification and burial. Shall we look for a blessing while we trample
on the mode through the observance of which the blessing is to be
given ? But he adds, " and as the word of God has nowhere informed
us of the precise mode in which the emblem should be applied." Is
not this to assume the very point in dispute? If this is taken for
granted, there is no controversy. Does any man insist that immersion
is essential, while he grants that the word of God is silent as to
mode ? What sort of reasoning is this ? But let it be observed that
REPLY TO DR. MILLER. 391
the author here admits that the mode is not fixed by scripture, while he
prefers sprinkling, or pouring, for an emblematical purpose. Has he a
license from Rome for this popish manufacture ?
Section XVII. — Dr. M. adverts to the conduct of Peter, on the
occasion of Christ's washing the disciples' feet. A finer or more appro-
priate condemnation of his own party could not be found. Peter, in-
fluenced by his own wisdom, would not submit to this, as it appeared a
degradation to his Master. " Jesus answered and said unto him, What
I do thou knowest not now ; but thou shalt know hereafter." Is not this
enough for thee, Peter? No, replies the arrogant fisherman, "Thou
shalt never wash my feet." What petulance under the guise of hu-
mility, though mingled with sincerity! Who does not see in Peter the
opposers of Christian immersion ? From their own view of decency,
propriety, &c, combined with a number of forced improbabilities and
difficulties, that are mere phantoms, they cry out against immersion,
though Jesus has positively enjoined it. Peter's obstinacy at last gave
way ; but his own wisdom is still his guide, instead of the wisdom of his
Master ; and he cries out, Not my feet only, but my hands and my head.
Will nothing restrain the arrogance of thy wisdom, Peter ? Will you
never learn that true wisdom teaches submission in all things to the wis-
dom of God ? When Peter saw that it was a good thing to be washed
by Christ, he must have more washing than Christ commanded. Just
so with our paedo-baptist brethren. Christ commands believers to be
baptized ; they cry out, Not ourselves only, but our little ones. In like
manner, in early times, naked baptism, trine immersion, &c. &c.
Section XVIII. — "Another, and in my view," says the writer, " con-
clusive reason for believing that our Baptist brethren are in error, in
insisting that no baptism, unless by immersion, is valid, is, that the na-
tive tendency of this doctrine is to superstition and abuse." Here again
I charge the writer as being unphilosophical in his principles, and illogi-
cal in his reasoning. He assumes the point in debate, by taking it for
granted that God had not appointed immersion : for if God has appoint-
ed it, would it tend to superstition to insist on obedience? Again, if
the thing is believed to be of Divine appointment, even although this
should be a mistake, it has no tendency to superstition. If any one
believes that Christ has appointed sprinkling, I know he is in error ; but
to charge him with superstition, or his practice as having a native
tendency to superstition, would be an abuse of words. But while they
who practise infant sprinkling, believing it to be an ordinance of God,
are not superstitious, they are superstitious who practise it as a human
tradition.
How can the native tendency of the doctrine, that nothing but im-
mersion is baptism, be to superstition? Would the native tendency of
the doctrine, that water is essential to baptism, lead to superstition?
And how can one of those tend more to superstition than the other, if
they are both commanded ? If God has not commanded immersion,
then it is foolish to talk of it as tending to superstition : it is itself super-
392 REPLY TO DR. MILLER.
stitious, if practised on that ground. Nothing can be superstitious
which God has appointed. When God appointed circumcision, would
it have tended to superstition to insist on the thing commanded, and that
paring the nails was not valid circumcision ?
What does Dr. M. mean by saying, that the native tendency of the
doctrine is to abuse ? Is this philosophy ? Is it Scripture ? Is it com-
mon sense? If the native tendency of a doctrine is bad, bad must be
the doctrine itself. If the bad consequence is not in the doctrine, but
in its abuse, the consequence is not native. If Christ appointed immer-
sion, to hold that it is essential to the ordinance cannot have a bad ten-
dency. If he did not appoint it, the bad tendency is not an abuse. It
is foolish to argue against the abuse of a thing which has not been
divinely appointed. To argue against the abuse of any observance,
takes it for granted that the observance is duty : to argue against it as
natively tending to superstition, takes it for granted that it is not divinely
appointed. Here, then, Dr. M., in the very same sentence, in the im-
mediate junction of two words, considers immersion to be both true and
false.
If Dr. M. has met with any who believe that there is some inherent
efficacy in " being buried under water," and that those that have sub-
mitted to it " are, of course, real Christians," I give them up to his
unmitigated reprobation. But when he contends that this is the natural
tendency of the Baptist doctrine, I must affirm that this is downright
misrepresentation. Our doctrine is that the word signifies immersion,
and consequently nothing but immersion can be a fulfilment of the
command. This is saying no more than that nothing but immersion is
immersion. Sprinkling cannot be called baptism with more propriety
than sand can be called water. This I do not leave as an inference
from my doctrines : I wish to proclaim it to all my brethren. Does this
import that I lay on it any stress for salvation ? Does it import that I
deny the Christianity of those who will not receive it ? Does it say,
that I cannot consistently unite with every Christian in every thing in
which I am agreed with him? It imports none of these things. I can
say with the utmost sincerity, grace be with all who love our Lord Jesus
Christ in sincerity. The Christian who denies baptism altogether is
not excluded from my recognition.
Section XIX. — " Finally," says Dr. M., " that immersion cannot be
considered, to say the least, as essential to a valid baptism, is plain from
the history of this ordinance"
1. Here Dr. M. grounds on a false principle. He assumes the opinion
of antiquity as authority. This is Popery, or Puseyism. He assumes,
that if Christians in early church history considered affusion as a valid
substitute for immersion, it must be a valid substitute. I deny the
position : this is an unprotestant foundation.
2. Because antiquity sanctioned affusion, as a substitute for immer-
sion in some circumstances, even were its opinion authoritative, does it
follow that it is a lawful substitute in all circumstances? Does it imply
that the mode is optional ?
REPLY TO DR. MILLER. 393
3. The Fathers were led to this by an opinion that baptism was
necessary to salvation.
4. They did rfbt consider affusion to be baptism, but only a valid sub-
stitute for baptism. Dr. M. misrepresents Eusebius, when he says, that
he " states that Novatian was baptized in his bed." Eusebius says
nothing like this. He does not say that Novatian was baptized on his
bed, or that he was baptized at all ; but that, falling sick, he had
water poured around him in his bed. The word used by Eusebius is
perichutheis. He received the grace usually conferred by baptism, though
he was not baptized, but only perichysed. There is an ellipsis both of
the word water and of the word grace. He was poured around, namely,
with water ; he received, namely, grace. That it is the word grace that
is to be supplied by ellipsis is evident from several parts of Cyprian's
letter, and the phraseology usual on such occasions. This affords the
most irrefragable proof that they did not consider affusion as baptism,
but that affusion in a case of necessity will serve instead of baptism.
The superstition both of Christians and Mahomedans has, in cases of
necessity, substituted sand for water, as well as sprinkling for immersion.
It is very merciful in the two churches to make so needful a commutation.
5. Nor is Dr. M. correct in reporting the testimony of his documents
when he says, "And although some questioned, whether a man who had
been brought to make a profession of religion on a sick bed, and when
he considered himself as about to die, ought to be made a minister; yet
this doubt arose, we are assured, not from any apprehension that the
baptism itself was incomplete, but on the principle that he who came to
the faith not voluntarily, but from necessity, ought not to be made a
priest, unless his subsequent diligence and faith should be distinguished
and highly commendable." Eusebius says nothing at all about the
completeness or incompleteness of Novatian's baptism. He does not
represent him as baptized at all. The question was, whether a man
having water poured about him on a sick bed could be said to have
received the grace, and more especially whether he could be fit for an
office in the church. Though he was perichysed, he was neither bap-
tized nor confirmed. The words of Eusebius expressly state, that it was
not lawful that a man having water poured around him in his bed
should have any ecclesiastical office conferred on him. If he might
by such a substitution be allowed to go to heaven, this might not be
sufficient to make him a good Puseyite clergyman. And, to make
the matter still worse, he had not, after this substitution for baptism,
received the confirmation of the bishop, without which a man could
not receive the Spirit, even though he had been born of water. How
can Dr. M. say that the affusion, instead of baptism, was no part of the
complaint against Novatian, when the very words quoted by himself
imply this most decidedly ? Cyprian's answer shows that the question
was, " whether they are to be accounted lawful Christians because they
have not been washed all over with the water of salvation, but have only
some of it poured on them ?" After quoting this, how could Dr. M. say
that the complaint did not respect the want of immersion, and the sub-
stitution of affusion ?
50
394 REPLY TO DR. MILLER.
Dr. M. tells us that Origen was contemporary with Cyprian, and that
he, in commenting on 1 Kings xviii. 33, tells us that " Elijah baptized
the wood on the altar." This proceeds on a principle I have often
explained and illustrated. Every child knows that our word immerse
may be used in the same way.
Dr. Miller's work can have no pretensions, as a work of controversy,
founded on criticism. He merely asserts the meaning of the word by
solemn declaration, or rests it on the testimony of others without pro-
ducing their proofs. If I have paid him the compliment to notice him
as a controversial writer on the meaning of the word in question, he is
indebted to his fame on other subjects. In his reasoning he either
assumes false first principles, or from sound principles deduces false
conclusions.
CHAPTER VIII.
EXAMINATION OF THE VIEWS OF MR. HALL OF AMERICA, ON THE MEANING
OF THE WORD BAPTISM.
Section I. — While Mr. Hall thinks that pouring and sprinkling are
" the only modes for which we have any clear scriptural example, or even
clear scriptural authority," he also thinks, that the mode of the applica-
tion is a " matter of entire indifference," and that " immersion is a
valid baptism." Here Mr. H. and I differ fundamentally, with respect
to the obligation of scriptural example and authority. If there is clear
scriptural example, and clear scriptural authority, for pouring and
sprinkling, and neither scriptural authority, nor example, for immersion,
I cannot admit that immersion is baptism. Can anything be valid,
which is not scriptural? Can a thing be scriptural, which has no
scriptural authority ? This is a valid invalid. If the word in question
is so extensive in its meaning as to include immersion, then how can it
be said, that there is no scriptural authority for the mode? On that
ground it has the clearest proof, though not to the exclusion of other
modes. It is evident that the author has no clear conception of his own
meaning of the word that designates this ordinance. He cares not
what the meaning is, provided it has sufficient extension for pouring
and sprinkling.
The command to baptize, he thinks refers to the thing done, rather
than to the mode of doing it. But what is the thing done ? As far
as respects the word, mode is the very thing in command ; the water
itself is usually supplied by ellipsis. When Mr. H. asserts of himself
and others, that " they would as soon throw their bodies into the fire,
as refuse to be immersed, were they convinced that immersion is essen-
tial to baptism," I give him full credit, and rejoice in the belief of his
integrity. At the same time, I must say, that as long as he grounds on
the rules of interpretation adopted by him, overlooking the fundamental
laws of language, I can see no reason for his changing his convictions
on any subject.
Section II. — He commences with some observations on the laws
of interpretation. This is as it should be. On the soundness of the
philosophy of this procedure, the whole question must for ever depend.
It is hardly ever named by the generality of our opponents. I am, then,
395
396 REPLY TO MR. HALL.
much pleased to find this writer commencing so auspiciously. Even
though here in error, he may, by the habit of pursuing first principles,
find the truth at last. With a view, by one stroke, to set aside all the
authorities on our side, for the meaning of the disputed word, he alleges
the use of the word provisions. All the dictionaries, he says, give
victuals as the meaning. Yet in a law of Edward III., forbidding
all ecclesiastical persons to purchase provisions at Rome, it means
nomination to benefices by the pope. But how does this example stand
in my way 1 Is it by the authority of dictionaries that I determine the
meaning of any word ? The language, and not lexicons, is my authority ;
and the language in the alleged example, gives the word provisions
a secondary meaning, which is of equal authority with the primary.
Nothing can be in more perfect accordance with my doctrine. It is
just an example that I would select to illustrate my views of the laws
of language. The English language gives nomination to ecclesiastical
benefices by the pope, as one of the meanings of the word provisions ;
and when used in reference to ecclesiastical things, it is self-evidently
clear that this, and not victuals, is its meaning. How does this apply to
my doctrine with respect to the word in question ? In what department,
in what author, Jew or Gentile, is it used in any sense but that of
immersion? Here Josephus and the Septuagint agree with the heathen
poets; the latest writers agree with the earliest. If one decided example,
in any author, of any age or country, gives a secondary meaning, I will
admit such meaning to a fair competition. Mr. H. thinks he has here
the strength of demonstration, yet he proves nothing that I will not
assert. It is my own doctrine.
Mr. H., with my other opponents, represents me as resting the proof
on the classics alone. This, as I have again and again showed, is a gross
misrepresentation. I begin with the classics, I end only with the hour
of the institution of the ordinance. If Josephus and the Septuagint
established a secondary meaning, corresponding to the meaning of the
word provisions in the canon law, I would admit it with the greatest
promptness; but if ancient authors establish but one meaning of a
word, a secondary should not be supposed in later writers, except in
proof of its existence. A good deal of unsound observation has been
employed by the learned, on the subject of the distinction between
classic and Hellenistic Greek, and torrents of nonsense and of ignorance
have been poured forth by those who adopt their conclusions. I may
yet have an opportunity of stating my views on the subject. But here,
the question has no concern. The fact to be ascertained is the change
— not the cause of the change. If a change is proved, I will admit it,
whatever may be supposed the cause.
He alludes triumphantly to the case mentioned Ecclesiasticus xxxiv. 30.
The baptizing here, he thinks, was done by sprinkling. Demonstrably
it was not ; it was a bath. As the words baptize and louo here refer
to the same thing, Mr. H. thinks that this is evidence that they are
synonymous. I have often been obliged, gratuitously, to teach my
opponents that words may refer to the same thing without being
synonymous. I bestow on him this canon. If he looks through what I
REPLY TO MR. HALL. 397
have written on the subject, he will see it proved. When words refer to
the same thing, they must be consistent in what they express; but
one may express more or less than the other. As Mr. H. appears
to have a turn for the philosophy of first principles, I hope this will not
be lost on him.
I had said that, " When I have proved the meaning of a word by the
authority of the whole consent of Greek literature, 1 will not surrender
it to the supposition of the strict adherence of the Jewish nation, in the
time of writing the Apocrypha, to the Mosaic ritual." I have no need
of availing myself of the aid of this observation ; but I still rigorously
adhere to it as a sound principle. A change in a rite is frequent ; and
a change is rather to be admitted than to disregard the authority of
language.
" The question, then," says Mr. H., " comes to this dilemma; either the
Jews had abandoned the mode of purifying from a dead body, as speci-
fically and minutely pointed out by God ; or, here was a baptism by
sprinkling." The question has not come to this ; for I can do without
this supposition altogether. In fact, I have no need of it : I give it
merely as an ultimate possible resource, or a proof beyond what is
necessary. And if it did come to this, where is the improbability, espe-
cially where is the impossibility of such a change ? The Jews made
greater changes in their religion than this. Surely our opponents should
not think this an unjustifiable change.
He speaks of me, as " driven to assume, and that without the least
shadow or pretence of authority, that when God had commanded a
purification by sprinkling, the Jewish nation had turned about and made
an immersion of it." Why does he say, I am driven ? Does he not
perceive, that I have pointed to this as a possible resource ? Have I not
proved the thing without this ? Why does he say, that I assume ? Does
he not perceive that I do not assume it as a fact 1 I assume it merely as
a possibility ; and whde I assume it as a possibility, I do not believe it
to have been a fact. The writer's observations show that he is not
acquainted with the philosophy of the burden of proof. He supposes
that it lies on me to prove that there was actually such a change as I
suppose possible, before I can avail myself of the argument. But I am
here only answering an objection — not establishing an affirmative ; and
a bare possibility is perfectly sufficient. Let Mr. H. acquaint himself
with the philosophy of evidence, before he ventures to criticise my
reasoning. He is strong only from his ignorance of the grounds of
proof. He supposes that I must have felt great difficulty in Mark vii. 4.
I can assure him, that I never felt a moment's embarrassment : it is as
plain to me as any point in history. If I believe the evangelist, I can
have no doubt of the fact reported. Either the persons referred to, were
immersed on the occasions mentioned, or the inspired writer testifies a
falsehood. Between these alternatives my faith cannot hesitate. But
my opponent not only frequently tramples on self-evident first principles ;
he here adopts an unsound and arbitrary first principle, as the founda-
tion of his argument. He assumes that every Scriptttre historical fact
must he authenticated by uninspired history. This is not a sound first
398 REPLY TO MR. HALL.
principle : it is not essential even to an uninspired historian. But the
Scriptures disdain it. But even were the canon admitted in this
instance, what would it prove? It might serve the infidel, but could
not affect the question as to the meaning of the word. Grant to the
infidel, that no historical fact in Scripture can be admitted as truth
unless it is authenticated by the history of the time, — he will triumph in
his unbelief. In vain will you allege that the word may not here signify
immersion ; he defies you to bring an instance, in which it has another
meaning. If they were not immersed, he will say, the evangelist asserts
a falsehood. What is meant by the word, must be proved by the usage
of the language. If the word signify to immerse, then there is the best
of all historical proof: there is inspired proof that the persons referred
to, immersed themselves before meat, after market.
But here, Mr. H. is confident that he takes away my foundation.
" The meaning of the word," says he, " is the very thing in question
here. We cannot allow him to prove a matter in question, by first
assuming it as true." To this point, I invite the rigorous exercise of
discrimination in all my readers. Assume the point in question ! I would
almost as soon be convicted of high treason. Sound and fair reasoning is
with me the point of honour as a controversialist. Let truth itself fall,
rather than uphold it by falsehood. But I do not assume the meaning of
the word here ; I rest it on the proof previously alleged. Have I not
found the meaning of the word, by the testimony of the whole range of
Greek literature ? When, from this authority, I have found that it signifies
immerse and nothing else, have I not an unquestionable right to allege
this proved meaning in any place where the connexion itself does not
decide? Had I alleged that the word in Mark vii. 4, must signify
immersion, without having submitted any previous proof, then I might
be charged with assuming the point in question. But when in a
disputed passage, I allege that the word must have the meaning which
in other passages it is proved to have, I rest on a self-evident first
principle ; I assume merely, that the meaning of the word in the lan-
guage must be the meaning of the word here. Is there any one pos-
sessed of a sound mind, who will dispute this? This assumption, I grant
equally to my opponents. Had they a meaning in proof, as the only
meaning of the word, I would grant that they might apply this meaning
to every passage that did not decide its own meaning. Is it not on the
ground that I have proved the meaning of the word, and not by assump-
tion, that I assert that it must be immersion in this place? Suppose
for instance, that we interpret the expression, " Her Majesty took an
airing yesterday in her pony phaeton :" and that we dispute about the
meaning of the word pony. " Pony," says one, " is a small horse ;"
" Pony," says another, " cannot be a small horse, for I saw her Majesty
yesterday, driving with very large horses. Pony, then, must signify a
Jarge horse." " I care not what you saw," says the first, " pony is a
small horse, for the use of the word in the language is nothing else.
Either then, the account is false, or her Majesty did yesterday take an
airing with small horses in her carriage." " Assumption, assumption !'
cries Mr. H. : " the fact must not be determined by the word, but by other
REPLY TO MR. HALL. 399
proof." Would not this be ridiculous? It is the very soul of Mr. H.'s
objection to my doctrine on this point. In any particular passage
where my opponent may choose to dispute the meaning of the word, I
rest on the meaning of it as already in proof. The word in question,
signifies to immerse, as certainly as pony signifies a small horse. If it is
not in proof that the word signifies to immerse, then I allow that the
meaning cannot be assumed here. Surely, this is very far from as-
suming its meaning. As I would not charge Mr. H. with a want of
candour, I must charge on him a want of perspicacity, in not being able
to discriminate between resting on previous proof, and mere assumption
of the point in question. This is the only point in which Mr. H. is
plausible ; and here he is plausible only to persons who have as little
discrimination as himself.
" What," says Mr. H., " is the historical fact, as to what the Jews did
before eating, when they came from market? Settle this, and you settle
the meaning of the word baptize in this connexion." This is not the
question to be settled. Uninspired testimony might say nothing on the
subject. The question is not, what history says on the subject ; but
what the evangelist says ? Can this be known, but by the meaning of
the word he employs ? I do not say that it must be the meaning that
I attach to it, but its meaning in the language, whatever that may be.
You must know the meaning of the word baptize, before you can know
what the Jews did on the occasion, according to the evangelist. History
might be silent, history might be lost, history might speak of other things
done, while the thing asserted by the evangelist might be omitted.
Nothing but a contradiction on the part of history, could place history
in opposition to the evangelist ; and even in that case the evangelist is
better proof than history. Whatever history may or may not say, it is
the meaning of the word baptize, in the Greek language, that must
inform us what the evangelist means on this occasion. When we go to
history, is it not by the meaning of the word in the language, that we
are to know its meaning, in any particular case ?
On the ground that the fact must be settled by the meaning of the
word, he asserts, that " the thing in dispute should be proved by itself."
This is an amazing want of discrimination. What is the thing in
dispute in this place? The meaning of the word in this passage, — the
meaning of the assertion with respect to the Jews. Now, is the assertion,
that the thing which they are said to do must be known by the meaning
of the word used by the evangelist, the same thing as to prove the thing
in dispute by itself? It is not from this passage that I prove the meaning
of the word : I bring the proved meaning, to show what must be its
meaning here. I do not argue from the passage, that the word must
signify to immerse : I argue that it must signify here, what it signifies
elsewhere. My reasoning on the point, so far from proving the thing by
itself, is perfectly consistent with the supposition that the word signifies
fumigation. I argue, that if the word is proved, from its use in the
language, to signify fumigate, and nothing but fumigate ; fumigate it must
be here, and nothing but fumigate. In determining the meaning of a
word, in passages in which connexion does not decide, we must be
400 REPLY TO MR. HALL.
directed by the use of the language. Can anything but the wildest
fanaticism deny, that the meaning of every assertion is the meaning of
the words employed to express it? And if the meaning of any word is
not determined by the passage in which it is used, must it not be ascer-
tained by its use in other places? Whether other history confirms
this, or contradicts it, is to me a matter of perfect indifference. If an
English traveller relates, that on a certain occasion a particular people
immersed themselves ; and another, that on the same occasion they fumi-
gated ; instead of reconciling them, by making immersion coincide with
fumigate, or fumigate with immersion, I will say, " either they did both,
or one of the travellers relates a falsehood." I will not allow any man
to defend them by tampering with the English words.
I find as little trouble in immersing the couches. Whatever might
have been their size, they might easily be immersed in a pond. But
even on the supposition that they were too large to be immersed entire,
I have contrived to take them to pieces, and immerse them in parts.
This excites Mr. H.'s great admiration. I have not the smallest need
for the supposition ; nevertheless I will retain it carefully, as a safe last
resort. " Indeed," exclaims Mr. H., " what shall we not allow him to
suppose might have been the case, rather than grant the possibility that
the Jews might have used the word baptize in a different sense from
that of the old heathen Greeks ?"
I will make this supposition, Mr. H., without waiting for your allow-
ance : it is my right to make it. Here, again, I must discipline him
on first principles. In answering an objection, anything possible may be
supposed ; in proof, nothing can be admitted without evidence. The
greatest part of my trouble is, to teach my opponents the laws of reason-
ing. Not one of them knows when proof lies upon him, and when it
lies upon me. They call for proof from me, when they should prove
themselves. When I answer objections by possible and even probable
solutions, they call on me for absolute proof. No man is entitled to
appear in the field of controversy, till he has studied the laws of the
combat. It is ignorance of this, with the adoption of false first prin-
ciples, that makes some ingenious men think it possible to bring immer-
sion into doubt. Let a man once know on which side, in every case,
the burden of proof lies, and let him adopt no principle of interpretation
but what is self-evident, and he will never, for a moment, consider im-
mersion assailable.
But Mr. H. here supposes that I consider it impossible for a word to
be used by later writers, in a sense different from its earliest use. This
is not truth. Many words have changed their meaning ; but in all cases
of alleged change, I demand proof of the change. What say you to
this, Mr. H. ?
Mr. H. is pleased to say, that it would seem to make no matter to me,
" how often people had been baptized in other modes than immersion, I
would still maintain my ground." On what ground does he venture
this assertion ? Do I admit that people may be said to be baptized in
other modes than immersion, while I contend that nothing but immersion
is baptism ? If one instance of sprinkling was called immersion, I would
REPLY TO MR. HALL. 401
give up the point of univocal meaning. The above assertion of my
antagonist is grounded on the following passage in my work : " I care
not if there never had been a human being immersed in water since the
creation of the world : if the word denotes immersion, and if Christ
enjoins it, I will contend for it as confidently as if all nations had been
daily in the practice of immersing each other." Now does this language
give any ground for Mr. H.'s observation ? What I say is, that I care
not if there never had been one immersion previously to the institution :
Mr. H. represents me as saying, that I care not how many people had
been baptized in other modes besides that of immersion. Is this a want
of discernment, or a want of honesty ? What I have said, I still say ;
does Mr. H. pretend to refute it ? Does he not say, " True, if the word
means immersion, and never means anything else ?" And is it not on
that ground solely, that the assertion is rested?
" But I humbly suppose," says Mr. H., " that the common practice of
a people who called a purifying, by sprinkling or pouring, a baptism,
would have some little weight upon the question, what the people did in
fact understand by the words baptize and baptism." A people who
called a purifying, by sprinkling or pouring, a baptism !!! Where is such
a people? Not under the heavens. The facts alleged to prove this, are
all mere assumptions. Were they admitted, then due weight would
cheerfully be given them.
Section III. — Mr. H. represents me as esteeming it as nothing,
" that the Scriptures represent the baptism of the Spirit uniformly under
the mode of pouring, * coming down like rain,' and shedding forth." Is
this truth? Do I admit pouring, coming down like rain, shedding forth,
to be the thing that is called baptism, while I make no account of it? I
do not, Mr. H.; I admit that the gift of the Spirit is spoken of under
every mode of the motion of water, but I contend that this is not the
thing that is called baptism. Is it not self-evident, that if the gift of the
Spirit is spoken of under every mode of the motion of water, no mode
can really belong to it? It cannot, then, be from mode called sprinkling
or pouring. But if in baptism it is a pouring, it cannot be a sprinkling ;
and if it is a sprinkling, it cannot be a pouring
He quotes from me the following sentence : " It is a fixed point that
baptism means immersion." That with respect to the baptism of the
Spirit, " nothing can be admitted inconsistent with this ;" and that " the
baptism of the Spirit must have a reference to immersion, because bap-
tism is immersion." Mr. H. represents me as, in these sentences, taking
the thing for granted, and replies, " That is the very thing to be proved."
And, Mr. H., is it not on the ground that I have proved it, that I have
made the above assertions? Why do I call it a fixed point? Is it not
because I had fixed the point ? Is there a child, in the whole range of
the American continent, who can read my book without perceiving that
I used all these assertions on the ground of previous proof? I must
charge Mr. H. as having so little perspicacity, for I am convinced it is
not a want of integrity, as not to perceive the nature of an assumption
without proof. I will make this plain even to the most obtuse intellect.
51
402 REPLY TO MR. HALL.
If any of my opponents attempt to prove that the word in question sig-
nifies to pour, or to sprinkle, or to purify ; afterwards, on the import of
the phrase, baptism of the Spirit, I will allow him to make use of the
result, and adopt the language that I have used. If he has found that
the word signifies to sprinkle, or to pour, or to purify, then he has a
right to explain the phrase, baptism of the Spirit, accordingly. The
figurative meaning, it is self-evident, must have a reference to the literal,
and be explained in accordance with it. The man who disputes this is
not worthy of castigation.
With respect to me, he adds, " But he insists upon it directly in the
same page, and puts his words in italics, 'Pouring cannot be the figura-
tive baptism, because baptism never literally denotes pouring.' " Here
again, I suppose, he thinks I beg the question, or rest it on mere asser-
tion. Has he not the perspicacity to perceive that I rest this assertion
on the ground which I had already gained " with my sword and my
bow?" Do I not here found on the proof which I had previously given
for the meaning of the word, and on the self-evident principle, that the
meaning of a word in a figurative use must be known from its literal
meaning ? After all my proof of the meaning of the word, does my
assertion of its meaning rest on this assertion ? I can give argument ;
but I cannot give my opponents discernment.
In my treatise on baptism I had said, that " Pouring could not repre-
sent the pouring of the Spirit, because the Spirit is not literally poured."
This is a fact that common sense will never question. It is so obvious,
that I am astonished that it could be hid from any. Yet, obvious and
self-evident as it is, I believe I am the first who pointed it out. On this
I rest as on the pillar of heaven ; it is an axiom that never can be ques-
tioned by a sound mind. Is there any pouring in the Godhead ? It is
blasphemy to suppose it. But Mr. H. very coolly answers me, " Does
not God himself say, I will pour out my Spirit?" Yes, Mr. H., God
himself says, I will pour out my Spirit ; so does God himself say, that
he has hands and heart. Has he hands and heart ? To make pouring
emblematic of pouring in the Spirit, makes the Godhead material. I
say the same thing with regard to immersion. Immersion as a mode can
be no emblem of the Spirit. But if it is pouring in baptism, as an em-
blem of the pouring of the Spirit, how can sprinkling, or immersion, or
any other mode, be baptism ?
Nothing can be more evident than that the phrase, baptism of the
Spirit, refers to the abundance of the gift of the Spirit. It is perfectly
similar to the phrase, " arrows drunk with blood." Deut. xxxii. 42
Arrows drunk with blood, means arrows that have shed much blood.
What would be thought of the writer who should allege that there must
be in the arrows something like drunkenness ? The Holy Spirit asserts
the very same sort of baptism with respect to Asher, Deut. xxxiii. 24 :
" He shall dip his foot in oil." This does not mean that he was literally
to dip his foot in oil ; it means that the tribe was to have abundance
of oil. He was not to be all immersed in oil ; but his foot was to be
immersed. He was immersed up to the ankle. This is entirely the
same figure with baptism in the Spirit. It denotes plenty — not mode.
REPLY TO MR. HALL. 403
To be baptized in the Spirit, is to have abundance of the gifts of the
Spirit. I rest fully satisfied that no man of sense will ever question
what I have written with respect to pouring and sprinkling, as emblem-
atical in baptism.
Section IV. — Mr. H. disputes some of my examples from the classics.
Soldiers baptized up to the middle, he thinks, could not be said to be
immersed or buried. They could not be said to be wholly immersed or
buried : but they are not said to be immersed or buried as to the whole
person. Is not the baptism expressly limited ? Up to the middle. This
example is as good as if the soldiers had been actually buried in the
sea. It is to me unaccountably astonishing that men will risk the
credit of their understanding by such observations; keeping out of sight
altogether, that it is the law of our God that we are handling. What
can the words give us but mode? Would a child imagine that the
word of mode should determine the extent of an object subjected to that
mode ? In determining the meaning of the word, the immersion of a
joint of the little finger is as good as the immersion of the whole body.
With respect to the Roman general who baptized his hand in blood,
to write an inscription for a trophy, he says, * Suppose we grant it. My
pen is the instrument of writing, and I dip it in the ink when I write ;
surely I never immerse it in ink when I write. When will our Baptist
brethren cease this play upon the word dipping, when they are to prove
a total immersion?" Must I tell you again and again, Mr. H., that we
never pretend to prove the extent of the immersion from the word itself?
I wish to treat my antagonist with respect ; but it is difficult to avoid
an expression of contempt in repelling such allegations. We can prove
a total immersion ; but we are not to prove it from the word itself. He
makes a distinction in dipping a pen in ink, and immersing it. But
there is no difference as to totality between dip and immerse; both
may refer either to a part or to the whole. In the expression, dip the
pen in the ink, there is an ellipsis of the part of the pen dipped, under-
stood from the commonness of the operation. Besides, dip is used as a
more familiar word than immerse. What idea has the writer of the
meaning of the phrase, playing upon a word, when he calls this a play-
ing upon the word dipping ? Has it not the same meaning here that
it has every where else? How, then, is this playing upon it? If we
choose to be stiff and stately, can we not also say, immerse the point of
the pen ? This is egregious trifling.
With respect to the sinner represented by Porphyry, as baptized up
to his head in Styx, he says, " He is not immersed ; he is not buried in
water." Is he not immersed as far as he is baptized? Would Mr. H.
have him immersed farther than he is said to be baptized ? What more
can be required than proof that the word immerse corresponds to the
word baptize? Does he expect that if the word will extend to the whole
person, it cannot also be capable of restriction to a part ? Was ever
nonsense so nonsensical ? But is not the express restriction here sub-
joined, evidence that, without such restriction, the baptism would be
understood as extending to the whole person ?
404 REPLY TO MR. HALL.
In reference to Alexander's soldiers baptized in the tide up to the
middle, he says, that if this was immersion, " then, when our Baptist
ministers wade out into the river with their candidates, then both the
minister and the candidates are immersed without being put under
water at all." Not so fast, Mr. H. Is this a fair representation ? Are
Alexander's soldiers said to be immersed? They are not : they are said
to be immersed up to the middle. Is it, then, Mr. H., consistent with your
ideas of truth, to represent, that either of those things was an immersion
generally ? Alexander's soldiers are expressly said to be immersed only in
part : and in the situation supposed, the minister and the candidate may
be both said to be immersed up to the middle. In that situation, the
candidate is immersed without reference to a part ; that is, he is wholly
immersed. Cease trifling, Mr. H. ; it is about a law of Him who shall
judge the world, that we are contending. Could you not say, the woman
carried the child into the river, and dipped him three times 1
Section V. — Mr. H. proposes three inquiries, which I notice merely
as a specimen of his reasoning.
1. "What would the immediate disciples of our Lord understand as
the meaning of the command, baptize?" What could they understand
as the meaning of the command, but the thing meant by the word ?
The answer is self-evident. If the word signified to sprinkle, they
would so understand the command ; if it signified to pour, they would
understand the command accordingly : and if immersion was the mean-
ing of the word, they would understand the command to be to immerse.
The true question is, what was the meaning of the word ?
2. Mr. H.'s second question is, " Is there satisfactory evidence that
they always administered the ordinance by immersion ?" To this I reply,
had there been no account at all of their practice, it is evident that they
performed the rite in the manner commanded. We know from the word
itself, what must have been their practice, had there been no account
of that practice. If the word signified to immerse, must not inspired
practice correspond with a Divine command ? Had the word signified
to pour, the apostolical practice must always have been pouring. As it
was to immerse, it must have been always immersion. No evidence is
essentially necessary, but that of the word itself, Apostolical practice
independently proves the same thing.
Mr. H.'s third question is, " On the supposition that they did so, is
there evidence that they considered that one mode essential ?" To this
I reply, if the command was to immerse, is not the command the same
thing to us as it was to them ? Besides, if the apostles always practised
immersion, when other modes were not only practicable, but more easy,
their practice is equal to a command. Would they have practised
immersion, if sprinkling would serve?
With respect to the divers baptisms, Heb. ix. 10, he says that Paul
" specifies here, what washings (baptisms) or purifyings he speaks of;
and the only ones which he specifies are here performed with blood, and
with the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean." Paul specifies no
such thing. None of the things referred to are a specification of the
REPLY TO MR. HALL. 405
baptism. Does he refer to the baptisms, what was done with the
sprinkling of blood ? There is not the semblance of truth for the
assertion. The apostle does not call the sprinkling of blood a baptism,
nor even a washing of any kind. He does not speak of washing with
the ashes of an heifer. The blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes
of an heifer, sprinkling the unclean, are said to sanctify to the purifying
of the flesh, but are not said to be baptisms. " These sprinklings," says
Mr. H., " Paul calls baptisms." It is not so, Mr. H. Paul does not call
these sprinklings, baptisms. Why will men again and again assert what
has not a colour of truth ? It is painful to be obliged to give so strong
a contradiction to men who are, as Christians, worthy of esteem ; but it
is not from inadvertence that such assertions are made ; on that ground,
it would claim indulgence : but the assertion continues to be made, after
being a thousand times contradicted. The subtilty of Satan himself
cannot plausibly contrive to force these sprinklings into the divers
baptisms.
With respect to the opinion of the Baptists that the bathing (Numb.
xix. 17, 18) may be one of the divers baptisms, (Heb. ix.) Mr. H. ob-
serves, " I am glad of the objection, because it distinctly recognises the
fact that Paul refers to those purifyings as among his divers baptisms."
The Baptists do not allege this as an objection ; they bring it as an
example. But how does it serve Mr. H. ? He says, " It recognises the
purifyings as among the divers baptisms." It makes no such recogni-
tion ; it recognises one of the purifications as a baptism. Does that
import that all the purifications were baptisms? This is an amazing
want of perspicacity. If a man presents to a banker twenty notes, does
the banker recognise them all as his, because he recognises one of them?
" But the objection," says Mr. H, " is idle ; as Paul does not specify
the bathing as any part of what he means, but he does specify the
sprinkling." Baptists do not allege that Paul specifies the bathing as a
baptism. It is enough for them that it may have been an immersion ;
they need no information from the apostle on the subject. The apostle
tells them, that there were under the law divers baptisms. He tells
them nothing more about these baptisms; but they are entitled to
include among them every thing that can come under the meaning of
the word. Here, Mr. H. shows himself deficient as to first principles.
He assumes that the bathing, in Numb. xix. 17, 18, cannot be among
the baptisms ; because Paul does not express this. Every thing must
be included among the divers baptisms that comes under the meaning
of the word, without any explanation of the apostle. Paul specifies none
of the divers baptisms ; but if there was a bathing in any of the Old
Testament rites, which was performed by immersion, then such bathing
was a baptism. That the sprinklings referred to are a specification of
the divers baptisms, is a most unfounded assumption. On similar
grounds, he assures us, that ver. 15 and onward speak of baptisms. He
might as well assert, that the apostle speaks of the thing referred to, as
belonging to the Eleusinian mysteries.
" Another of those baptisms," says Mr. H., " is mentioned, Numb,
viii. 7." As I cannot think that the author wishes to impose on his
406 REPLY TO MR. HALL.
readers, I must say that an argument more childishly weak, I have never
found in controversy. The leper was cleansed by sprinkling; but is
that sprinkling ever called baptism ? Are such assumptions to be con-
tinually reiterated ? " As it is the sprinkling of the blood of Christ," says
Mr. H., " that does the cleansing, surely it should be the spritikling of the
water in baptism, that signifies the cleansing." Here, the author con-
veniently overlooks what I have said on the phrase, sprinkling of the
blood of Christ. There is no actual sprinkling of the blood of Christ on
the believer. The application of the blood of Christ is called a sprinkling,
in allusion to the type, — the sprinkling of the blood of the sacrifice. No
man of sense has ever questioned this, since I pointed it out. The man
who does not acknowledge it, I cannot think worthy of being addressed
by argument. No axiom can be more self-evident. Neither pouring
nor sprinkling can be emblematical, for the reasons alleged. But it is
strange to astonishment, that the author did not see, that if baptism is
a sprinkling as an emblem of the sprinkling of the blood of Christ, it
cannot be a pouring as an emblem of the pouring of the Spirit. Yet,
the writer and many of my opponents are so extravagantly inconsistent,
that they take both emblems out of the ordinance. Dr. Miller takes
both emblems, while he acknowledges that Christ has appointed neither.
With respect to Mark vii. 3, 4 ; Luke xi. 38, he says : " The fault of
the Lord Jesus and of the disciples, in the eyes of the Jews, was, that
they had not first been baptized before eating ; i. e., they had eaten with
unwashed hands." Now, with respect to facts that interest the passions
and prejudices, who can trust historians who report documents that
never see the light, when a man of God makes such a representation of
documents that are in the hands of all his readers? Mr. H. tells us,
that the fault of the Lord Jesus, in the eyes of the Jews, was, that he had
eaten with unwashed hands. It is not a fact. Mr. H. tells us, that
the fault of the disciples was, that they had not first been baptized before
eating. Neither is this a fact, Mr. H. The disciples are charged as
eating with unwashed hands ; the Lord is charged as eating unbaptized.
These are the facts, however baptism may be explained. How is it
consistent with integrity to confound these facts, for the purpose of
drawing the following conclusion : " The washing of the hands, there-
fore, was a baptism 1" The washing of the hands is neither here nor
anywhere else said to be a baptism of the person.
In reference to my assertion, that the baptism after market before
eating is immersion, he asks, "What does he bring to prove it? The
word baptize !" Here we have a note of admiration. Well may we
wonder that any intellect is so obtuse as not to perceive that the proof
objected to, is the only proof that the case admits. What other proof
could be given, than that such is the meaning of the word in the Greek
language ? Should I say that the man is stupid who cannot see this,
how is Mr. H. to know what I here mean by the word stupid ? Is it not
by its meaning every where else? If it signifies dull of apprehension
in the English, is it not so to be understood as here used ? Yet, Mr.
H. would call this proving a thing by itself, or assuming the point in
debate. When the meaning of a word is proved, and when a secondary
REPLY TO MR. HALL. 407
meaning is not in proof, it is self-evident that in every situation it has
its proved meaning. This is as certain as proof in mathematics.
Mr. H. tells us that there is no evidence that the Jews had such
a practice. There is no need of such evidence; the testimony of
the evangelist ought to be sufficient. It is a false first principle to
assume, that a fact in Scripture cannot be believed, unless it is proved
by the history of the times. This is not essential even to civil history.
He refers with astonishment to my assertion, that " even an inexplicable
difficulty could not affect the certainty of my conclusions." Is he
so little conversant with the nature of evidence, as to think this a bold
assertion ? The Bible itself could not stand without the assumption of
its truth. But in the question at issue, there is not one inexplicable
difficulty — indeed, to learning and skill there is not a single difficulty at
all. I make the observation for the sake of truth in general, rather than
its bearing on this point.
" To my mind," says Mr. H., " here is, so far, demonstration — proof
which puts it beyond my power to doubt — that sprinkling and pouring
are scriptural modes of baptism." Here we have a specimen of what,
in the estimation of Mr. H., is demonstration. Because the Jews were
displeased with the disciples for not washing their hands before eating,
and with Jesus, for not baptizing himself before dinner, therefore,
sprinkling or pouring is a mode of baptism ! Demonstration, admirable
demonstration ! Because the Jews had water-pots for purification, there-
fore, sprinkling and pouring are modes of baptism ! Such demonstration
is not to be found in Euclid. Even were immersion out of the question,
Mr. H. and the rest of my opponents, who allege an improbability from
this passage, assume a false principle. They assume, that if it is not
immerse, it must be what they mean. It might be neither sprinkle, nor
pour, nor purify ; it might be any one of many other things. This is
another instance in which they assume what they ought to prove.
With respect to Acts ii. 17 ; xi. 15, 16, he says, " the mode of baptism
here spoken of, is under the figure of pouring and shedding forth." The
gift of the Spirit is spoken of under the figure of pouring and shedding
forth, but the pouring and shedding forth are not called baptism. , The
gift of the Spirit may be figuratively spoken of under any mode of the
figurative object. But there is no mode in the operations of the Spirit.
The likeness of the figure is always in the effects. The gift of the
Spirit is spoken of under all the modes of the motion of water. Does
this imply, that any one of these motions is the same as any other ? or,
that there is any real motion in the Spirit like the motion of water?
Surely any portion of discernment may perceive that the same object
may be figured under different modes. Moses says, " My doctrine shall
drop as the rain, my speech shall distil as the dew." Is the dropping of
rain the same figure with the distilling of dew ? And is there any
likeness in mode, between doctrine and the thing referred to? Nothing
but ignorance of the philosophy of language could embolden our oppo-
nents to use such arguments. May not a child perceive, that if the gift
of the Spirit is spoken of, both as a pouring and a shedding forth, the
likeness in the figure cannot be in mode, as the same motion cannot
408 REPLY TO MR. HALL.
have two modes ? Shall I never be able to teach my opponents, that
whenever mode is ascribed to the Spirit, the phraseology is accommo-
dated to the emblem — instead of mode being employed as an emblem ?
Speaking with respect to pouring, sprinkling, &c, he says : " I cannot
but wonder that those who insist so much upon the words, ' buried with
him in baptism,' are not able to see in these also an equal authority for
proper modes of baptism." A very little penetration would entirely relieve
the patient from this malady. His wonder, as in most instances, would
cease, with a little more knowledge. Baptists cannot but see immersion
in the phrases " buried in baptism," and " buried by baptism ;" because
believers cannot be buried in baptism without being immersed in the
water of baptism. They cannot see a mode of baptism in sprinkling,
pouring, shedding forth, falling as rain, and because none of these are
ever called baptism. Cannot Mr. H. see, that if pouring and sprinkling
are both applied to the gift of the Spirit, without implying that they are
the same mode, immersion may likewise be applied to the same gift,
while it is a mode different from both ?
Section VI. — Mr. H. thinks it strange that Baptists dwell so much on
the much water at Enon, while they find enough in Jerusalem to baptize
three thousand converts in a small part of one day. Here he thinks he
has shut us up in a dilemma, from which there is no escape. We must
either give up a sufficiency of water in Jerusalem, or we must set no
value on the abundance of it in Enon. But a little discrimination
would have prevented this observation. There is not the slightest
inconsistency in our sentiments on this subject. The writer assumes
that we think that John the Baptist declined Jerusalem for want of
water. This is not the fact : he chose the wilderness for other reasons,
and in the wilderness he chose the place most fit for his purpose of
baptism. Had there been a lake at Jerusalem, John would have chosen
the wilderness as the station of his labours. He thinks it strange, also,
that if the much water in Enon was necessary for the purpose of baptism,
we never hear a complaint about the want of water with the apostles.
The apostles, however, did not confine themselves to the wilderness ; and,
wherever they went, they could find as much water as would immerse
their converts. For the multitudes baptized by John at the same place,
much water was necessary ; no such thing was necessary for the immer-
sion of a few.
Much water, he says, was necessary for supplying John's hearers
with drink, as he wrought no miracle. Our Lord had as great crowds
to hear him, yet he did not supply them miraculously with drink. John
is not said to have preached at Enon, because there was much water
there. Not only is the drink apocryphal, but the use of the water is
expressly stated. He baptized at Enon because there was much water.
It is also stated, that it was to be baptized the people went.
He quotes from travellers an account of the destitution of water in
the wilderness of Judea. Well, was not this the very reason why John
baptized in Enon ? He could have sprinkled any where. He thinks
it might be necessary for purification. But there is no purification in
REPLY TO MR. HALL. 409
the narrative. Perhaps it was for swimming, or sailing, that the much
water was necessary. Is there no end to extravagance ? But for puri-
fication it could not be necessary, as they need not delay a moment after
baptism. The Spirit of God assigns the use of the much water ; dare
arrogant mortals give another and a different use?
Section VII. — With respect to our Lord's baptism, Mr. H. tells
us, that " the original language here is such as can have no reference
to emerging from under water." He alleges a concession of mine with
respect to the preposition apo ; but he does not, it seems, understand
the criticism. Apo commences its motion from the object: the edge of
the object, then, is a fulfilment of its meaning. But it is obvious that it
may commence in any part of the object, while its commencement is
still equally from the object. Accordingly, it is frequently used when
the motion commences within the object : but for the reason alleged, it
cannot definitely express this. To express this definitely, ek is necessary.
But to say, with Mr. H., that the Greek language forbids the idea of
emerging from under water, is unwarranted by the use of the word. It
does not decisively express that idea, but it may be used when the
motion commenced in any point in the water.
As to the verb, I suppose Mr. H. rests on the authority of Professor
Stuart, of Andover. But I tell both these gentlemen, that the verb does
not forbid emersion. On the contrary, the verb, compounded with Icata,
is used by iEsop as signifying to dive. When Mercury, compassionating
the woodman who let his axe drop into the river, dived three times, one
of the dips was by Jcataduo, and the other two by katabas. Anabas,
then, would be the exact word for emerging, corresponding to the word
that expresses the diving.
I will tell Mr. H. another secret. Justin Martyr uses the word
anaduntos (emerging) instead of anabainontos, in relating this transac-
tion. Did not Justin know, as well as Mr. H., what is consistent with
the original language? We have Justin's authority that this account
of the evangelist refers to the immersion and emersion of Jesus. He
understood the passage as asserting that the Spirit of God descended on
Jesus as he emerged from the water ; and he uses the very preposition
apo, which Mr. H. represents as precluding the idea of emersion. After
all, I freely admit that the phrase itself is not decisive. It would
be amply verified if the motion commenced at the edge of the water.
Instead of being a partisan to force evidence it will ever be my purpose
to represent evidence as in the sight of God Let my opponents take
this concession also. I am too strong in truth, to be afraid of conceding
anything that truth requires. But is it not absurd to ground anything
here on the difference between apo and ek, when we have ek in the case
of the eunuch ?
He alleges that the phrase, coming up out of the water, " does not
necessarily imply that one has been under water." Very true ; but if
persons are represented as going into water for the performance of a
certain rite, there must be something in the nature of the rite that
obliges them to go there, in order to perform the rite. Perverseness
52
410 REPLY TO MR. HALL.
may cavil, but no fair answer can ever be given to this. If the answer
usually given can satisfy any conscience, I do not envy that conscience.
Section VIII. — Mr. H. thinks that Jesus was baptized as a priest,
and, therefore, that he was purified by sprinkling. He was not baptized
as a priest. This is extravagantly absurd. 1. John's baptism did not
belong to the old dispensation. It made no distinction between priests
and the rest of the Jews. 2. Jesus could not be baptized as a priest,
because he was not of the priesthood to which the Levitical ceremonies
belonged : these belonged only to the priesthood of the tribe of Levi
and of the house of Aaron. 3. Had he been consecrated as a Levitical
priest, all the ceremonies of consecration would have been employed as
well as sprinkling. 4. John had nothing to do with the consecration of
priests. 5. It was the baptism that others received from John to which
Jesus submitted. 6. Justin Martyr had a better view of the necessity
of baptism with respect to Jesus. He was not baptized, he said, for his
own sins, but for the sins of the human race, which had fallen under
death by the seduction of the serpent. There was in Christ's immersion
the same figure as in that of his people. They are cleared of sin by
fellowship with him in his death, which is figured in their burial with
him by baptism. He took their sins off them, and cancelled them by
his death : the blood of his death washed them away. His own
baptism, then, had as much propriety in the figure as the baptism of his
people.
Section IX. — Mr. H., as well as Dr. Miller, adopts the silly evasion,
with respect to Philip and the eunuch going into the water, which alleges
that it equally proves that they were both immersed, if it proves that
either of them was immersed. He entirely mistakes the argument. No
man reasons so foolishly as to assert that every one who is in water must
be totally immersed. The argument is, that nothing but the necessity
of immersion, as to one of them, could take them both into the water.
Indeed, what can be the use of telling us that they went into the water,
if it is not for our instruction ?
He tells us, that it is not certain " that they went farther than to the
river." What ! Not certain that they went into the river ? How,
then, could they come out of it? If I have admitted this as to apo, I
have not admitted it as to eh. He gives us a number of passages in
which eis, the preposition signifying into, signifies unto. This is no news
to us ; it needed no proof. Our proof is independent of this.
"Who will prove to me," says Mr. H., "that the stream was a foot
deep 1" If he means proof independent of the passage, there is no need
of such proof. A controversialist that knows his business will never
attempt this ; nor will he demand it. The proof is, that Philip and the
eunuch went into it in order to the performance of the rite, and nothing
but immersion could make it necessary to go into the water. If the bap-
tism was an immersion, I suppose that it may be taken for granted that
the water was deep enough for immersion. Had pouring or sprinkling
been used, they would neither of them have gone into the water.
REPLY TO MR. HALL. 411
"Who," says Mr. H., " will prove it a stream at all?" Wisdom will
never undertake the proof — wisdom will never ask the question. Whether
it was a fountain or a pond, a river or a lake, makes no difference.
Could any fact in history afford proof on such a principle 1 Indeed, had
there been no mention of water, and had it been in a desert, the word
baptize proves that there must have been water for immersion. What
folly is it, then, when the water is mentioned, to demand proof that it
was a stream !
" Who will prove," he asks, " the quantity of water there was suffi-
cient to render an immersion possible 1" If they went into the water
for the purpose of performing the ordinance, pouring or sprinkling a
little water could not have been the thing performed. If, then, immer-
sion is the only thing that will give a reason for their going into the
water, there is proof that the water was deep enough for immersion.
" If it was," he continues, " who will prove that the eunuch was im-
mersed?" The passage proves it. He was the person baptized, and to
perforin the baptism they went into the water.
Mr. H. thinks that there is some probability in favour of sprinkling
on this occasion. Philip expounded the chapter of the prophecy which
the eunuch was reading : in that chapter there is something about sprink-
ling : this would naturally bring on a conversation about baptism, which
is sprinkling, &c. &c. Am I to refute dreams and visions? But the
dream, like other dreams, is inconsistent. It supposes that sprinkling
is the meaning of the word baptism, which is inconsistent with the
author's theory. He gives it a general meaning, though I cannot dis-
cover exactly what that general meaning is. Whatever it is, it must
include all modes, and therefore it cannot be modal at all. Here he
makes it one precise mode.
Section X. — With respect to Rom. vi. 1, and Col. ii. 12, he says,
" There is just as much reason to argue from them that believers are
literally put to death in baptism, as that they are literally buried under
water in baptism." To this I reply, that they are literally immersed,
but the burial is equally figurative as the death ; and they die in baptism
as well as they are buried in baptism. Indeed, it is by being buried, that
they die. That this figurative burial is under water is not in the pas-
sage : this is known from the rite, and is here supplied by ellipsis.
" They are planted together," says the author, " in the likeness (not
of his grave or burial) but in the likeness of his death." This is ex-
quisite criticism. He here confounds burying and planting. Are not
these two different things, and have we not here two figures? Believers
are said to be buried with Christ by baptism, and to be planted with
him in the likeness of his death. The burying and the planting both
refer to baptism, but they are not the same figure, but exhibit the object
in a different point of view.
" If," says Mr. H, " we are to infer the mode of baptism from these
figures, the evidence is strongest for drawing a resemblance for the mode
of baptism from hanging on the cross, for that was the mode of his
dying ; and the passage says, we are crucified with him." How extra-
412 REPLY TO MR. HALL.
vagantly absurd is this ! We are, indeed, said to be crucified with Christ,
but are we said to be crucified in baptism ? But we are said to be buried
in baptism. Besides, crucifixion is still a different thing from both
planting and burial. Does he expect the same likeness in all ? Are we
said to be crucified in baptism in the likeness of Christ's death? There
is no criticism in these observations.
" The argument," says the writer, " is, We are dead with Christ, and
we must no more live to sin than a dead body must live." I am not
sure that I understand this commentary. What is meant by the phrase,
" than a dead body must live?" I suppose, by the phrase, must not live
to sin, he means the duty of not living to sin. But in the contrast he
cannot mean the duty of a dead body. A dead body cannot live ; the
contrast, then, would be that believers cannot live in sin more than a
dead body can live. This supposes that the security against being in
sin is the total extinction of sin in the Christian. I do not understand
this theology.
"We are dead," says Mr. H., " and more — we are buried; as we often
say, to express strongly the fact that a person has ceased from living,
He is dead and buried." But, Mr. H., this is not the apostle's phrase-
ology ; he does not say that believers are dead and buried, but that they
are buried into death, and that burial into death is in and by baptism.
Believers are not merely said to be dead and buried, but to die and to
be buried in baptism. They are buried by baptism into death. Twist
and twist as you will, still there is burial in baptism. There must be
something in baptism to emblematize death and burial ; no sophistry can
evade this. " The burying," says he, " is the conclusive token of his
being dead." But, I ask, how is the token found in baptism, if it is
not in its mode ? There is no token of death in pouring or sprinkling.
"So," continues Mr. H., "the baptism is a token — not of the burying
— but of the death." Why does he so directly contradict the apostle ?
Does not Paul expressly say, that we are buried in baptism and by bap-
tism, which necessarily imports that there is a burial in baptism ? But
how is baptism a token of death, if there is no figurative death in bap-
tism ? How is baptism a token of death, but by its being a burial ? The
death here spoken of takes place in the burial. Believers are buried
into death. It is not, they die and are buried, but, they are buried
and die.
" It is not," says Mr. H., " the mode of the baptism that is referred
to, but the effect of the baptism." What ! the mode of baptism not re-
ferred to in the phrase, buried in baptism! Can there be any figurative
burial, without. something to represent the body as buried? But what
is the effect of baptism? Mr. H., as plainly as Dr. Pusey could do, tells
us that it is the crucifixion of the old man. No wonder that this leprosy
of Oxford has spread so widely in the Church of England. But Mr. H.,
it is not the effect of baptism, whatever that effect may be supposed to be,
that is here referred to. Our old man is indeed here said to be crucified
with Christ, but not in baptism. There is in baptism no crucifixion.
The argument which we draw from 1 Cor. x. 1, and 1 Pet. iii. 21,
Mr. H. understands to be rested on the quantity of water in the Red
REPLY TO MR. HALL. 413
Sea, and in the deluge. I can see neither wit nor refutation in this.
He knows well, what we have said on these passages. But he tells us,
that the eight souls " were in the ark, and neither buried nor immersed."
What could be a more expressive burial in water than to be in the ark,
when it was floating ? As well might it be said that a person is not
buried in earth, when lying in his coffin covered with earth. May not
persons in a ship be said figuratively to be buried in the sea ? They
who were in the ark were deeply immersed.
" Moses," Mr. H. tells us, " walked on dry ground." Yes, and he got
a dry dip. And could not a person, literally covered with oil-cloth, get
a dry immersion in water ? Are not the Israelites said to go into the
sea? Was it sea where they walked? It is called sea on a principle
similar to that on which it is called baptism.
Mr. H.'s charge of failure in making out an immersion in the case
of the ark, and of the passage of the Israelites through the Red Sea,
shows a total inattention to the processes of thought in language.
"Few, few shall part, where many meet;
The snow shall be their winding sheet ;
And every turf beneath their feet
Shall be a soldier's sepulchre."
Would any Goth object that the snow cannot be a winding sheet,
because it does not wind round the whole body of the dying soldier?
As the soldier, says the critic, was uncovered above, the snow cannot be
his winding sheet. And is he not a Goth, who says that the Israelites
could not be buried or immersed in the sea, because they were not
covered with the water ? But our critic must proceed. As the soldier
lies on the turf without any covering from it, it cannot be said to be the
soldier's sepulchre. What sort of criticism is this?
" Look into my face, dear cousin," said one pitted by the small-pox,
" and tell me, are there not pit-holes deep enough to bury a million of
Cupids?" The critic replies, with triumph, "However deep the pits
may be, no one can be buried in them, seeing they are open at top."
This is the very criticism of our opponents.
If Mr. H. is unreasonably obstinate in not finding an immersion here,
he makes ample amends by his facility in finding spray for sprinkling.
But not only is the spray a creation of the imagination, it is a creation
unsuitable to the occasion. It would have been an annoyance ; and the
wind that blew the water from them could not blow the spray on them.
Yes, and the very tempest that God sent on their enemies for their
destruction, Mr. H. employs for the baptism of the host of Israel, Psalm
lxxvii. On the Israelites there was neither spray, nor rain, nor storm.
Will Mr. H. say, what is the baptism of the Red Sea?
Mr. H. comes next to the consideration of a number of passages in
which he alleges that we are compelled to take the labouring oar, and
render that certain or probable, which in the face of it seems impossible.
Here, Mr. H. manifests that he has insufficient skill in the fundamental
laws of controversy. I tell him, that in these instances, proof does not
lie on us : we are not bound to prove, independently of the word, that
414 REPLY TO MR. HALL.
there was a sufficiency of water in any of the situations referred to. If
we have proved the meaning of the word, the word commands the
water, in opposition to any number of improbabilities. The proof of
impossibility lies on him. Go, then, Mr. H., and study the principles
of reasoning. You should know when it is your duty to prove, and
when you have the privilege of calling on your antagonist to prove.
I tell Mr. H. that I can immerse the three thousand on the day of
Pentecost, without the assistance of the brook Kedron, or any proof
from history. I will not take the trouble even to gauge the ponds and
reservoirs in Jerusalem. There may have been many conveniences on
that occasion in Jerusalem, of which we can know nothing. This is
enough for me, had it been situated in a desert. I have been formerly
too good-natured in making faith easy to my opponents, by putting the
water before their eyes : I shall, henceforth, oblige them to go and look
for it.
" Now," says Mr. H., " what do those who make John take Jerusalem
and Judea out to Enon, to immerse them, because there is much water
there? All at once, and very conveniently, there are discovered a
number of reservoirs and baths." Here, surely, he has got us into a net ;
but it is a weak fish that cannot break the meshes of this net. The
author founds on a false assumption : he assumes that John avoided
Jerusalem for want of a sufficiency of water. This is not the fact. Had
there been a lake in Jerusalem, John would have chosen the wilder-
ness ; and in the wilderness he chose the place most convenient for the
immersion of great multitudes. If we refer to the number of reservoirs,
and baths, and pools in Jerusalem, it is out of compassion for the weak-
ness of our opponents. In a city where purifications by bathing were
every day so numerous, with respect to both rich and poor, there could
be no want of conveniences for immersion. But I care not if there
were not in proof a single pool in the city : I will force water out of the
word, as used hi the ordinance, although there is no water in the word
itself.
But " a simple mathematical calculation," says Mr. H., " will show
that the eleven apostles could hardly have immersed three thousand
persons in so short a time."
Here again Mr. H. grounds on a false assumption. He assumes that
none but the apostles baptized. Where is this taught ? I promise, in
the name of Dr. Pusey, to offer him a premium if he will prove this
What a great evil is superstition? To make anything necessary in reli-
gion, that God has not commanded, is to lay a foundation for Babylon
the Great. Mr. H. thinks he has here the certainty of mathematical
calculation, when his reasoning is founded on his superstition.
Next comes the jailer. Mr. H. thinks that he makes out a strong
point of inconsistency on our part, when he observes that we find means
of immersion even in a prison, while we are obliged to send John to
Jordan and Enon. But I have shown that the appearance of inconsist-
ency here, is in the false conceptions of those who allege it. We did not
send John out of Jerusalem for want of water : he chose the wilderness
as the theatre of his labours, and chose such places in it as suited the
REPLY TO MR. HALL. 415
immersion of such multitudes as came to his baptism. Does this imply
that water may not be found in any inhabited part of the country suffi-
cient to baptize individuals ? Shame to common sense if it stumble here !
He tells us with an air of triumph, that there is not a " scrap of
evidence in the history, to show that an immersion was possible."
Here, again, I arraign my antagonist as ignorant of his duty as a
controversialist. He comes into the arena, without a knowledge of
the laws of the tournament. He calls on us for proof, when proof
lies on himself. We are bound to prove the meaning of the word. If
an objector alleges the inapplicability of such a meaning in any case, he
is bound to prove that it is inapplicable. An unproved objection is no
objection. Is there in the passage any proof of the possibility even of
sprinkling 1 It may be alleged that there is no need of this. I admit
the truth of this ; but this shows us that there is no need of proof from
the passage, that the thing asserted was possible. That it was possible,
is assumed in the word, whatever the word may signify. If we read
that a sportsman was drowned in crossing a certain district, are we
obliged to prove the existence of a river or pond, before we know the
meaning of the word drowned? Were we even certain that in that
district, there was not as much water as would cover him, we should
discredit the report, but never question the meaning of the word. The
meaning of no word could, in every instance, be proved, if it is not
lawful, in cases in which context does not decide, to rest on previous
proof: the meaning of no word could in any case be proved, if it is
necessary, in every case, to prove the possibility of the alleged meaning
by historical evidence. The confidence of our opponents rests entirely
on the assumption of false principles. Instead of thinking myself obliged
to prove the existence of a bath in the jailer's house of Philippi, or the
possibility of going to the Strymon, I utterly refuse to be called on for
proof. I prove the possibility of immersion, by the fact that there was
an immersion.
Mr. H. thinks he finds an inconsistency in us in flying from the bath to
the river. Here, again, he has demonstration. " Now," says he, " this
is to give up the baptism in a bath within the prison ; for I take it as
a point not to be debated, that he was not baptized both in the prison
and out of it, in one and the same baptism." This has, to superficial
thinkers, an appearance of acuteness, but it really manifests a want of
discernment. In holding the possibility of an immersion, both in the
jail and in the river, are we bound to hold that it was actually per-
formed in both 1 Can any intellect make such an assertion ? We
might prove the probability of immersion in a third different place,
while we believe that it actually takes place only in one. I believe that
the passage affords evidence that the immersion takes place without,
yet I shall strenuously contend for the possibility of immersion in the
jail.
With respect to Paul's baptism, Mr. H. asks, " What pretence for a
bath in the chamber?" What pretence, I reply, for denying the pos-
sibility of a bath in this chamber ? And a possibility is all I want, to
enable me to work the miracle. I ask in return, what is the necessity
416 REPLY TO MR. HALL.
of confining the baptism to this chamber ? Where did you learn that
they did not go to another chamber ? Where did you learn that they
did not go out of the house altogether? Where or how the immersion
was performed, I neither know nor care. All I know is, and that I
thoroughly know, Paul was immersed ; for the word tells me this. Will
my opponents learn when they are to prove, and when they may demand
proof? But I refuse to give proof, though I have proof. Paul was
bathed in baptism, therefore he was immersed. In Judea, where the law
forced them so often into the water, baths must have been as common
as ovens in English farm-houses.
In the account of the baptism of Cornelius, Mr. H. thinks that the
idea of Peter " seems to be, not that they might be carried and applied
to the water, but that water might be brought and applied to them."
Whether they were to go to the water, or the water was to be brought
to them, is not in evidence from the document. And the water might
have been brought for immersion as well as sprinkling, even had it been
implied that the water was brought. " The Spirit's mode of baptism,"
he tells us, " was by falling upon." The Spirit is indeed said to fall
upon them, but that falling is not called baptism. There is no mode in
the operation of the Spirit. Whether the Spirit is said to fall on per-
sons, or to be poured on them, or they are said to be immersed in the
Spirit, there is no mode in the working of the Spirit.
" That immersion," says Mr. H., " was early and extensively prac-
tised is certain. That it was not considered essential is also certain."
It is true that very early in cases of necessity, pouring water around
persons on a sick bed, was admitted a substitute for immersion ; but
it is not true that they called the substitute by the name of baptism.
Now it is only with the meaning of the word in the writings of the
earliest fathers that we have any concern. Their opinion as to the
effect of baptism, or as a substitute, I despise as much as I do the
opinions of Dr. Pusey.
The following extract he quotes from the Rev. William T. Hamilton :
" For any one to assume that one mode only was employed, and then
demand that all should comply with that mode, while they can produce
neither express command nor an undeniable example of baptism by im-
mersion in the Bible, is rather a bold stand to take, especially for those
who insist that in a positive ordinance, the law of the ordinance must be
our guide."
Who is it, Mr. Wm. T. Hamilton, that assumes this ? Did any Bap-
tist ever ground the meaning of the word on assumption? The Rev.
Wm. T. Hamilton may dispute their proofs, and has a right to express
his opinion of the sufficiency of their proofs ; but he should know that
to allege insufficient proof is not to assume the point at issue. This
writer appears to have a loose random way of speaking ; and perhaps he
has not asked himself what he means by the charge of assumption. If
he really understood what he was saying, can there be a greater mis-
representation of Baptists than to charge them with assuming that there is
but one mode of this ordinance; and on the ground of this mere assump-
tion, calling on all Christians to comply with it ? Do they not pretend
REPLY TO MR. HALL. 417
express command and example ? If the command is not proved, and
the example not satisfactory, let this be shown ; but let them not be
represented as grounding on assumption, and forcing their assumption
on their neighbours.
Section XI. — Mr. Hall asserts that Justin " uses such language as
renders it certain that he by no means considered immersion essential,
and such as renders it doubtful whether he meant immersion at all."
Justin uses the word in the sense of immersion, whenever he does use
it — never in any other sense. Mr. H. tells us that in writing to the
Emperor, Justin " invariably describes the baptism, and does not use
the word baptism at all." Well, if this were so, how can his use of the
word prove that he did not consider immersion essential? If in a
certain case he did not use the word at all, how can the word in that
case prove that he used it in a certain meaning? Very true, in writing
to the Emperor, Justin describes the ordinance, without using the word :
but that description, so far from being inconsistent with immersion, adds
to the proof of immersion : it proves it by other words. Is not this
necessarily implied in the fact that the candidates for baptism were led
to a place where there was water? Is it not necessarily implied in the
assertion that they were there born again in that ordinance ? Is not this
a reference to their issuing out of the water of baptism ?
Another of Mr. H.'s proofs is, that Justin applies louo and loutron to
the ordinance. I maintain that this is proof of immersion. These
words apply to the bathing of the whole person. When Mr. H. speaks
of louo as signifying washing in general, he speaks not in knowledge.
Baptism is represented by Justin as a bathing of the body. Yet I tell
Mr. Hall, that though louo is applied to the same ordinance as baptizo,
the words are by no means synonymous. I have given a thousand proofs
of this.
The author's own quotation from Cyprian, might show him that even
that Father, who makes perfusion a valid substitute for baptism in case
of necessity, does not consider perfusion to be baptism. " Perfusion,"
says he, " is of like value with the salutary bath." Does not this import
that perfusion is not the same thing as the salutary bath? Perfusion,
then, is not baptism, in the estimation of this Father, although he made
it serve the same purpose.
Mr. H. quotes the case of the Jew, who, falling sick while travelling
with Christians, was sprinkled with sand, for want of water. Yes ; and
if this is proof that sprinkling will serve for immersion, it equally proves
that sand will serve for water. This trash will find no purchasers except
the Puseyites.
Section XII. — Mr. H. inquires, " On the supposition that the early
disciples always baptized by immersion, is there evidence that they con-
sidered that mode essential ?"
To this I reply : 1. This supposition is not fully and fairly stated.
It ought to be included in the supposition that the word in the command
53
418 REPLY TO MR. HALL.
signifies to immerse. If we are right as to the meaning of the word, the
thing commanded is in all ages the same.
2. Even on the defective supposition stated, the answer must be in
the affirmative. If they who practised according to the command of the
apostles, always observed the ordinance in one mode, while several
other modes were practicable and were much more easily observed, it is
evident that the mode cannot be indilferent. Besides, the apostle Paul
fully teaches this : " Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me
in all things, and keep the ordinances as I delivered them unto you."
Even the covering and uncovering of the head in public worship, and
the wearing of short or long hair, are things thought worthy of Divine
regulation. Should any be contentious with respect to the forbidden
practices, it was deemed a sufficient answer, that " neither the apostles
nor the churches had any such custom." This establishes the customs
of the apostolical churches as firmly as if all those customs were in all
the formality of an act of parliament.
3. Mr. H.'s supposed case in answer to his question is not parallel to
the case put by himself. The case put is example ; the case in illus-
tration is command. " Suppose," says he, " the command had been,
'Let every believer go down to Jericho.' Suppose that the Saviour and
his early disciples all went by one particular way, and always rode on
ass colts, must we always go in that road?" &c.
To this I reply : The way by which they are to go to Jericho not
being included in the command, can never by any example be brought
into it. To go to Jericho in any way to the end of the world, is a per-
fect fulfilment of the command. If they always go to Jericho by one
way, while that way is fifty times as long as others, it cannot be without
design. But this has no bearing on the question at issue. The com-
mand is to immerse, and immersion must ever continue to be obedience
to the command. As they always actually immersed, it shows that they
understood the command as an immersion. To make the supposed
case in point, the command should be to go to Jericho, while it is
obeyed by going to Damascus. This is the principle on which our
opponents act. They justify a change of the mode on the principle of
expediency.
Section XIII. — " The thing is commanded," says Mr. H., " the mode
is not commanded." I have proved a thousand times that mode is the
very thing directly commanded. But what is the meaning of the com-
mand, according to Mr. H.? I can understand those who say that the
word in this command signifies neither to pour, nor to sprinkle, nor to
immerse, but that it signifies to purify, and may be fulfilled in any
mode. This is bolder extravagance than that of Mr. H., but it is
consistent extravagance : I cannot find that Mr. H. has any definite
idea as to the meaning of the word in the command. It is with him
sometimes one thing and sometimes another, as it suits the occasion.
Here it is pouring — there it is sprinkling ; while on some occasions he
appears to favour the supposition that it signifies to purify. These
REPLY TO MR. HALL. 419
views are perfectly inconsistent. If it is pour, it cannot be sprinkle : if
it is either, it cannot be purify : if it is purify, it cannot be mode at all.
Mr. H. illustrates, by six examples in a note, with respect to the
Lord's supper, none of which have any application to the subject. It
was at flight. This fact has no feature of an example. Every fact is
not an example. When a thing could not be otherwise, it cannot be an
example. But it does not even suit the case put by him. Does not
the case put suppose universal practice ? Is not this a solitary fact,
evidently without an intention of being an example? I need not waste
time by running over the six examples : they are all of the same
stamp.
" So here," says Mr. H., " we are to be baptized, and simply bap-
tized." Certainly : but what is this to the purpose of the argument
alleging universal practice as an insufficient proof? All we want is, that
our opponents should comply with the command. " But I have shown,"
says he, " that the words baptized and baptism were in common use
among the Jews of that time to denote ritual purification by sprinkling
or pouring." You have shown no such thing, Mr. H. : but had you
shown it, what has this to do with universal practice ? This extract
shows that the author has no definite view of the meaning of the word.
Had he understood and adopted the theory that makes the word signify
to purify, he would not have spoken of proof with respect to sprinkle
or pour. All modes on that supposition are indifferent. When he speaks
as if the word designates both purification and different modes, he speaks
most unphilosophically.
On the subject of the variety of baptism, under different modes, Mr.
H. tells us, with respect to the difference between John's baptism and
that of our Lord, " Here were two baptisms, while doubtless there was
but one mode." Thank you, Mr. Hall, I never could get an antagonist to
confess this honestly on Heb. ix. 10. There may then be divers baptisms ;
while doubtless there is in them all but one mode. But though there
may be two or more baptisms in one mode, this does not prove that
there may be two or more modes in one baptism.
In another publication, Mr. H. asserts, with respect to my views of
Mark vii. 4, that I see and feel the difficulties. There is no truth in the
assertion ; I neither feel a difficulty in the passage, nor see one. I
believe God on his own testimony, without the slightest wish for other
proof to confirm his statement. His testimony I cannot but understand
in the sense of the language which he employs. Instead of feeling diffi-
culty, I am more inclined to feel contempt for the understanding that
hesitates in believing the fact without the co-operation of uninspired
history. This lays down, as a first principle, that nothing in Scripture
is to be received, but what is proved by the history of the times. This
is a false axiom : this is not essential even to uninspired history. If a
modern traveller relates that a certain nation immerses before meat after
market, we shall not think of giving a meaning to the word immerses,
to suit our view of probability.
As some who make the word signify immersion, understand this
passage of the immersing of the hands, Mr. H. thinks he makes us
420 REPLY TO MR. HALL.
destroy each other. Now this is a species of argument which has its
use, and if well used it is very powerful. Baptists have often used it
with great success against their opponents. But the ground of it is not
well understood, and Mr. H. entirely mistakes it. I shall not, however,
at present enter into the subject, farther than the refutation of the
writer in the present instance demands. Let us see, then, with what
skill Mr. H. wields this sharp and powerful weapon. It is the sword of
Goliath, but with Mr. H. it is in the hands of an infant : he is not able
to raise it above his head. The fact on which he grounds is, that while
I contend for a total immersion before dinner ; others, on the same side,
are satisfied with immersing their hands. How do we destroy each
other 1 With respect to the subject at issue we never clash. The same
common truth as to the mode of baptism equally stands, whichever of
us is correct as to the baptism of the Jews. We differ only about the
extent of a certain Jewish baptism. As to the mode, there is no differ-
ence between us ; and mode is the point at issue, and is the only thing
signified by the word itself. On the meaning of the word there is no
difference between me and Dr. George Campbell, whom, as to the extent
of the baptism, I refute. Whether, according to him, the hands only
were immersed, or, according to me, the whole body, the word itself
does not testify ; this must be decided by connexion.
In the same way he makes us strangle one another on Rom. vi. 1.
Some Baptists, it seems, do not perceive the force of the argument which
others ground on this passage. Well, is this a difference as to the
meaning of the word ? At the very worst, it is only the loss of a single
argument — an argument, however, which I would hold, were an angel
to reject it. Must a cause fall, if all its supporters do not support it
with all the same arguments 1
In like manner many Baptists contend strongly that Acts xix. does
not prove that they who are spoken of as baptized into John's baptism,
were on that occasion baptized into Christ, while I admit this without
hesitation ; — what then ? Has this anything to do with the mode of
baptism? With respect to the points at issue, namely, the mode and
subjects of baptism, there is no difference between Baptists ; and these
are the only essential points of unity on this question. But we can bring
the charge home to our opponents with tremendous effect. Their differ-
ences are such that they really destroy each other. I have no time at
present to pursue the subject, but it has been done by many. The
different grounds on which a deviation from immersion is defended,
effectually destroy each other. If it is pour, it cannot be sprinkle; if it
is purify, it can be neither. The different grounds of infant baptism in
like manner destroy each other. If the baptism of the one is truth, the
other is falsehood.
CHAPTER IX.
REMARKS ON MR. MUNRO's WORK, ENTITLED " MODERN IMMERSION, &C.
Section I. — In reference to my denial that in Heb. ix. 10, the divers
baptisms include sprinklings, Mr. Munro exclaims, "Which are we to
adopt, — Mr. Carson's bold denial, or the apostle's explicit affirmation?"
The apostle's explicit affirmation ! Does the apostle explicitly affirm
what I deny ? Does he, in the 13th verse, affirm that sprinklings are
included in the baptisms of the 10th verse? The man who takes this
for proof, need never want proof for anything which he chooses to
assert.
Mr. M. denies as explicitly as I do that the word in question signifies
washing, or sprinkling, or pouring, or purifying ; but in all his work I
cannot find that he gives it any meaning at all. He tells us, that it is
applied to designate a sprinkling ordinance ; but its own meaning he
leaves in mystery. Surely, if it was applied to designate an ordinance,
it must have had a meaning in the language which fitted it for such a
designation. Of all that I have found advanced with respect to this
word, this is the most rational.
Section II. — Mr. M.'s exploits at the Red Sea surpass every thing
attempted by his predecessors. It seems, the Red Sea had no concern
with the baptism spoken of I Cor. x. 2. The baptism took place at
Mount Sinai, after the giving of the law. This extravagance is so ex-
travagant that I am convinced it needs no refutation with respect to
pa?do-baptists themselves. That the people of Israel were baptized in
the sea, is the explicit assertion of the Holy Spirit. Could sobriety of
judgment assert that what is described Exod. xxiv. 3-8 is the baptism of
1 Cor. x. 2? What must be the strength of evidence on our side, when
men are driven to suppositions so extravagant, to explanations so forced,
in order to evade it ! Ought not this to rouse psedo-baptists to inquiry?
Can it be truth that requires such a defence ?
The baptism 1 Cor. x. 2, Mr. M. alleges, cannot have taken place on
passing the sea, because no part of the covenant had been published at
that time. What had the covenant to do with the baptism ?
In reference to Exod. xxiv. 3 — 8, Mr. Munro says, that " Moses
sprinkled, baptized, or purified the altar." Where it is said that he
421
422 REMARKS ON MR. MONRO'S WORK.
baptized the altar? and why does he assume that sprinkling is bap-
tizing ? Is there any reasoning in this ?
He tells us also, that " with that half of the blood which Moses had
put in basins for the purpose, he baptized the great congregation."
Where is this called a baptism ? Is not this an assumption of the point
in debate ? Not one of the sprinklings which this writer calls baptisms
is ever so designated in Scripture. A thousand folio volumes of such
reasoning could not produce the smallest degree of evidence to a
rational mind.
We are told by this writer, that " the baptisms and the washings
included in the law were perfectly distinct ordinances." What he calls
baptisms are, no doubt, perfectly distinct from the washings. But what
he calls baptisms are never so called in Scripture. All he advances,
then, on this head, is without reference to the point, till he proves that
the sprinklings are called baptisms.
In replying to the argument, that the Holy Spirit is said to be poured
out, and therefore to represent the pouring out of the Spirit, baptism
must be pouring, I used very strong language. I still adhere to my
argument in the strongest language in which it can be expressed. No
man of common sense will ever call it in question : it is self-evident.
On this point, I have satisfied all rational paedo-baptists. It requires
nothing but to point out the fallacy. My argument is, that, as there
CAN BE NO MODE IN THE OPERATIONS OF THE SPIRIT, SO NO MODE IN
ANY ORDINANCE CAN BE AN EMBLEM OF MODE IN THE SPIRIT ; AND THAT
WHEN MODE IS ASCRIBED TO THE OPERATIONS OF THE SPIRIT, IT IS IN
ACCOMMODATION TO THE EMBLEM NOT A REPRESENTATION OF THE
thing signified. Accordingly, different modes, and all the modes of
the emblem, are ascribed to the work of the Spirit, which implies that
none of them can be intended to represent mode in the thing expressed.
In like manner I disposed of sprinkling as an emblem of the sprinkling
of the blood of Christ. It cannot be an emblem of this, because the
blood of Christ is not literally sprinkled on the believer ; it is said to be
sprinkled in reference to its emblem, the blood of the sacrifices. With
all sober men this point must be settled for ever. All the language of
Scripture referred to by this writer, ascribing mode to the Holy Spirit,
is suited merely to the emblem.
Mr. M. disclaims the imputation of holding that the spirit is literally
poured out. This is all I want to prove that pouring in baptism can-
not be an emblem of mode in the operations of the Spirit. If there is
no mode in the work of the Spirit, there can be no emblem of mode.
No axiom is clearer than this. To hold that mode in baptism is em-
blematical as to the operations of the Spirit, necessarily makes the God-
head material. I care not whether my opponents avow or disclaim the
imputation ; it is necessarily contained in their doctrine. But what
does the author mean when he says, that " sprinkling or pouring is the
only mode which can properly represent the thing signified ?" Does not
this avow the very thing he disclaims? Does not this imply that there
is mode in the thing signified which can be represented by a certain
mode in the emblem, and properly by that mode only? If there is no
REMARKS ON MR. MUNRO's WORK. 423
mode in the thing signified, how can pouring and sprinkling, as modes,
be necessary to represent it?
He tells us, that " in Scripture language sprinkling and pouring are
terms of the same import." Neither in Scripture nor any where else
are the terms of the same import : they express modes essentially dif-
ferent— as different as either of them is from immersion But it is idle
to reason with persons who can make such assertions.
Mr. M.alleges, that any " definition of the baptism of the Spirit sup-
poses the subject to be put into the Spirit ; whereas the Spirit is
invariably represented as poured out, so as to be put into them." I give
no definition of the baptism of the Spirit ; I merely explain the figura-
tive expression. The fact that the Spirit, in allusion to its emblem, is
spoken of under other modes, does not prevent the application of the
mode of immersion. Pouring, and sprinkling, and distilling, and im-
mersing, &c, may all be applicable, because they are all suited to
the emblem, and mode in the thing signified is not designed to be
represented.
He says, also, that I confound the baptism of the Spirit with the
effects of it. To this I reply in like manner, that I do not define the
baptism of the Spirit, but explain the expression as a figure.
Mr. M. is persuaded that Rom. vi. 3, refers to the baptism of the
Spirit, and not to water baptism. Baptism into Christ, he says, cannot
be done with hands. As well might he say that Ananias did not speak
of water baptism in addressing Paul, because he calls on Paul to wash
away his sins. As well might he say that Peter does not refer to water
baptism, because he says that it saves us. This conceit is perfectly
groundless. When the disciples at Ephesus declared that they had not
heard of the Holy Ghost, Paul asked them, " Into what then were ye
baptized?" This implies that water baptism is baptism into the Spirit.
He grounds another argument on the parallel passage, Col. ii. 12.
As their circumcision was not literal, he thinks their baptism could not
be literal. But there is no force in this argument : they might be said
to be spiritually circumcised, while they are said also to be literally
baptized. The same persons might be said to be both literally and
spiritually circumcised. Why, then, may they not be said to be spirit-
ually circumcised, and literally baptized? The baptism here must
be literal, because in no other is there a burial. They are not only said
to have been baptized, but to have been buried in baptism. This must
for ever settle the point, both that literal baptism is meant, and that
baptism is immersion. Even were the phrase buried in baptism,
supposed to be figurative, it equally implies that literal baptism is a
burial.
That it is a literal baptism is evident also, from its having a likeness
to Christ's resurrection, and implying, with respect to us, a new life.
It is only in the ordinance that such likeness can exist. That it is a
literal baptism is also clear, from its being called a planting in the like-
ness of Christ's death. Indeed, whether it is planting or anything else,
still there is likeness, and likeness implies something external.
Mr. M. tells us that the word likeness is not applied to baptism, but to
424 REMARKS ON MR. MUNRo's WORK.
planting. But it is baptism that is here called a planting. Between
planting, then, and baptism there must be a likeness. This baptism,
or figurative planting, has a likeness to Christ's death, by its likeness to
burial. Baptism is both a planting and a burial. But whatever the
word likeness may be supposed to respect, still it equally implies that the
baptism is literal.
Mr. M. tells us that the likeness is not to the burial, but to the death
of Christ. But the likeness to Christ's burial is a likeness to his death ;
it is a likeness to him in the state of death. Besides, the phrase buried
7cith Mm in baptism, shows that the likeness to death respects burial.
But whatever the likeness respects, still it equally implies literal baptism.
When he says the likeness is to the death of Christ, what is the thing
that has the likeness to Christ's death ? Is it not baptism ? How can
it have this likeness unless it is literal baptism ? How can it have this
likeness, but as death is implied in burial ?
Like others, Mr. M. insists on the want of resemblance between bap-
tism and burial. The resemblance is perfectly sufficient as an emblem ;
and it was not intended to be a dramatic representation. But what does
he mean when he tells us that Joseph did not dig a pit in the rock, nor
cover the dead body of Christ? If this has any bearing, it must be to
prove that Christ was not buried, and that there is no burial in baptism.
For the purpose of this figure, it is quite enough that baptism is a burial
in any way. Does not the experience of every day show us that being
covered with water, in any way, may be called a burial ? In an account
of a shipwreck it is said, " Boils appeared on all the seamen's legs at
once, and they were benumbed by being continually buried in water."
Here is a burial in water, when the water rose on the baptized from a
leak. The seamen did not dig a pit in a rock, for this burial.
With respect to Enon, Mr. M. alleges that much water was as neces-
sary for dipping as for sprinkling. This observation is not very profound.
Much water is not necessary for the immersion of a few persons ; but
for the immersion of multitudes very important. The water of a foun-
tain would soon become unfit for baptism, if used for the multitudes
baptized by John. Whether the phrase denotes one collection or many
collections of water, is quite immaterial.
He asks: " If baptism must be administered by immersion, why did
not Christ or the apostles ordain the construction of baptismal cisterns?"
What an argument! We might as well ask, if sprinkling had been
appointed, why was not the construction of basins ordained by the
apostles ? , Why ordain the construction of baptisteries, when all means
of immersion are equal ? What must be the degree of prejudice and
blindness in the mind, that sees an argument in this !
He tells us, that the much water was necessary for other purposes to
the multitudes who attended John. To this I reply : 1. The cause
assigned is not known to exist. It is not in evidence, that the multitudes
remained with John any length of time. 2. Had the cause existed, it is
insufficient to produce the effect. The multitudes might have remained
with John days and nights, though there had not been a single fountain.
Might they not have brought their water as well as their victuals?
REMARKS ON MR. MUNRO's WORK. 425
3. The cause alleged by us is expressly mentioned in the passage : John
was baptizing in that place, because there was there much water. The
much water, then, was for the baptism. 4. It was also for the purpose
of being baptized, that they came to this place of water.
With respect to the eunuch, he says, "Among the myriads of baptisms
of which we read in the Acts of the Apostles, with the single exception
of that of the eunuch, there is not a hint about going to or from any pool
or river." Does any rational man expect that every account of baptism
will record every circumstance in the transaction? One example is
perfectly sufficient. He demands an example of going from any chapel
or house to the river, or of going to any font of water in a house. Such
an example is not necessary. If they went to the water, in any case in
which a few drops of water could be brought to them, sprinkling could
not have been the mode. But they not only went to the water, but both
of them went into the water, for it is on record that they came out of
the water. I have, again and again, proved that the preposition signi-
fies out of, not from.
I had said, that there is not a spot in which a human being can be
found, in which a few drops of water cannot be found. Mr. M. alleges the
fact of great tracts of country being totally destitute of water. Is this an
answer to me? Does any human being reside in a country, where a few
drops of water cannot be found ? If the eunuch travelled through such
a country, it is self-evident that he had a supply of water with him.
I speak of the retinue of the eunuch. That such a man as the eunuch
took a retinue, needs not to be proved by record ; it is self-evident. But
for my purpose, there is no need of a retinue. One servant will suffice ;
and it is expressly on evidence that he had attendants : he commanded
to stop the chariot. Yet both Philip and the eunuch went not only
to the water, but both of them into the water, which lunacy itself would
not allege as necessary for sprinkling.
Mr. M. says that " they went down to the water, because they needed
water, and because the water would not come up to them." There is
neither wit nor strength in this remark. Do all men go to the water who
need water. The water would have come up to them, had a few drops
been sufficient. The eunuch could have commanded the water to come
up, as well as the chariot to stand still.
He says, that " I would persuade my readers that my opponents main-
tain that the Greek word signifies to pour, but that I know they do no
such thing." I do not represent all my opponents as maintaining that the
word signifies to pour, for I have shown that some of them think that it
signifies to sprinkle ; and that there is an endless diversity of opinion
among them, as to the meaning of the word. But is there any one who
does not know that many of them make the word signify to pour? But
what does he make the word signify ? This he does not tell us. Of all
the absurdities that I have met in criticism, this is the most absurd —
a treatise to ascertain the meaning of a word in an ordinance ; yet in all
the treatise there is no meaning assigned to the word !
He says, that he can assign a probable reason for the selection of this
word, as the designation of the ordinance. The reason is, "Dipping is
54
426 REMARKS ON MR. MUNRO's WORK.
included in any scriptural baptism." Does not this take for granted that
the word signifies to dip 1 But if the word signifies to dip, the person
baptized must be dipped. The baptism is not the dipping of the head
of the baptized, or water made to sprinkle the baptized; but the dipping
of the person who receives the ordinance. The priest, indeed, dipped
his finger in the blood of the sacrifice, in order to sprinkle it ; but this
was not called the dipping of the altar.
Mr. M. asks where I got the information, that the eunuch did not ask
for baptism till he saw the water in which it might be performed ? But
is it not obvious to the smallest degree of discernment that I speak from
the testimony of the documents, and not as regards abstract possibility ?
Besides, there is positive evidence from the passage, that the eunuch
considered baptism impossible, till the appearance of this water. It
is equally evident that this is the first time he asked for baptism ; for
had he asked before, he would have got an answer that would have pre-
vented this question. In every point of view, then, the author's objection
manifests as great a degree of captiousness, as want of penetration.
CHAPTER X.
REMARKS ON MR. THORN'S "MODERN IMMERSION NOT CHRISTIAN
BAPTISM."
The work of Mr. Thorn discovers very great industry, and an exten-
sive acquaintance with books on both sides of the question, as to the
meaning of the word in dispute. He manifests that, if the cause which
he has espoused is not successful in proof, it has not failed for want of
zeal and study. He has raked together all that lexicons, concordances,
and the other usual resources of second-hand critics, could afford ; and
he has enriched the treatise by long contributions of original trifling.
There is no science in his criticism, no philosophy in the principles on
which he assigns meaning. His interpretation is extravagant and wild
beyond almost any of his fellow-labourers. Yet there is one thing in him
with which I am well pleased ; — he appears perfectly convinced of the
truth of the point which he labours to prove. He does not, like some,
labour to produce confession ; as if the object were gained when decision
is rendered doubtful or impossible. He writes like a man in earnest, and
I cannot but respect sincerity even in its errors. As a defender of
sprinkling, it is fortunate for Mr. Thorn that he was not acquainted with
the philosophy of language, and the laws which operate in varying the
meaning of words. The sounder a writer's first principles are, under
the greater necessity will he be to give evidence when he defends error.
Where a Porson would fail, a Thorn would triumph. His examples are
fully met in my work, and I need not waste time in running over the
same ground in reference to his interpretations.
As a specimen of his criticism, I shall produce a few short examples.
As an objection to our meaning of the word in certain passages, he
alleges (p. 124) that it is " partial dipping." Would any critic speak
thus? Would any man who knows anything of language, expect that
the word itself was to determine whether the dipping were total or
partial?
He tells us in the same page, that " the moistening of the bread and
wetting of the finger are the ultimate intentions of the several expres-
sions, and not the present mode of doing it." When I say, Dip your
pitcher in the fountain, is not filling of the pitcher the intention of the
dipping? Is such an objection to be dignified with the name of
criticism ?
He tells us (p. 128) that " it cannot be asserted, that it is expressive
427
428 REMARKS ON MR. THORN'S WORK.
of one person dipping another." Would any writer, would any man of
ordinary acquaintance with language, expect that any word should ex-
press this ? Whether in baptism the believer is to dip himself, or to be
dipped by another, is not to be known from any word signifying immer-
sion, but from other criticism.
He makes the same complaint with respect to the twofold action of
sinking and raising. Does any one pretend that the raising is expressed
by the word? ,
He alleges, (page 139,) that according to us, the verb with the prepo-
sition in its syntax must express a double dipping. Was ever ignorance
so consummate under the guise of knowledge? Will not the objection
apply equally to the English phrase dip in or into ? Does it not apply
with greater plausibility to immerse in or into ? There is in accurately
expressed in the verb, while it is repeated in the preposition. Are we
obliged to meet such objection as criticism ? Are writers of this stamp
worthy of our rebuke?
CHAPTER XL
BAPTISM NOT PURIFICATION J IN REPLY TO PRESIDENT BEECHER.
Section I. — Mr. Beecher, President of the College of Illinois, Ame-
rica, has lately written on the import of the word baptismos, undertaking
to prove that it refers not to mode at all, but signifies purification in
general. Consequently, while we are on both sides of the question wrong,
we are still right. We are wrong in believing that mode is designated,
but we are on both sides right, because any mode of the religious appli-
cation of water is baptism. This is the happy theory by which harmony
is to be effected on this much and long-controverted subject.
To much of the former part of the work I can have no possible objec-
tion, because it is a mere echo of my own philological doctrines, illus-
trated with different examples. In a work controverting the conclusions
which I have drawn in my treatise on baptism, it surely was very unne-
cessary to prove that words may have a secondary meaning, wandering
very far from their original import. Can any writer be pointed out who
has shown this more fully than I have done ? I do not question this prin-
ciple : I have laid it down for him as a foundation. All I require is proof
of the existence of the secondary meaning, and proof of the existence of
the secondary meaning which he alleges. Had he given this, I would
admit such secondary meaning ; but would still show that the word in
reference to the rite appointed by Christ, has its name from the primary
meaning of this word. Mr. B. has done nothing of all this. He has not
proved that the word, in reference to the ordinance of Christ, signifies
purification ; he has not proved that in any reference it signifies purifi-
cation ; he has not proved that it has any secondary signification at all.
His dissertation is no more to critical deduction than Waverley or
Kenil worth is to history. Indeed the relation is not so true : it wants
that verisimilitude which is to be found in the novels of the illustrious
Scott. To the ignorant there is an appearance of philosophy and learn-
ing ; but sound criticism will have little difficulty in taking the founda-
tion from under the edifice which he has laboured to erect.
The first argument which he alleges to prove that baptismos signifies
purification, is drawn from John iii. 25. " In John iii. 25, Icatharismos is
used as synonymous with baptismos ; and the usus loqucndi, as it regards
the religious rite, is clearly decided. The facts of the case are these,
429
430 FIRST REPLY TO PRESIDENT BEECHER.
ver. 22, 23. John and Jesus were baptizing, one in Judea, the other in
Enon, near to Salim, and in such circumstances that to an unintelligent
observer there would seem to be a rivalry between the claims of the two.
The disciples of John might naturally feel that Jesus was intruding into
the province of their master : they might even believe John to be the
Messiah, and thus give rise to the sect that held that belief. On this
point a dispute arose between the disciples of John and the Jews, (or a
Jew, as many copies read) verse 25. They come to John and state the
case, verse 26 : ' Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom
thou barest witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and all men come to him;1
plainly implying that in so doing he was improperly interfering with the
claims of John. John in reply, verse 27 — 31, disclaims all honour
except that bestowed on him by God, of being the forerunner of the
Messiah, and rejoices to decrease in order that he may increase — thus
justifying the course which was so offensive to his disciples, and settling
the dispute in favour of the claims of Christ. The argument from these
facts is this : The dispute in question was plainly a specific dispute con-
cerning baptism, as practised by Jesus and John, and not a general
dispute on the subject of purification at large ; so that zetesisperi baptismou
is the true sense ; and if it had been so written, the passage would have
been regarded by all as perfectly plain. But instead of baptismou, John
has used katharismon, because the sense is entirely the same. In other
words ' a question concerning baptism,' and ' a question concerning puri-
fication,'were at that time modes of expression perfectly equivalent ; that
is, baptismos is a synonyme of Icatharismos."
To this I reply, 1. Mr. B. says, "On this point a dispute arose." On
what point? As I understand the author, it is with respect to the con-
flicting claims of John and Jesus. This is the obvious reference, and this
is confirmed as his meaning, by his afterwards saying that John settled
this dispute in favour of the claims of Christ. Now this is not at all the
point to which the question at issue between the disciples of John and
the Jews had reference. That question was about purifying, and not at
all about the claims of John and Jesus. For anything that appears in
the document, the Jews might never have heard of Jesus.
2. The author says, " They come to John and state the case." They
did not state to John the case concerning purification ; they stated ano-
ther case quite different. What they stated to John was an expression
of surprise that another person was baptizing, and especially that he was
more successful than John himself. As this statement was for the pur-
pose of eliciting a reply from John, I have no objection that it shall be
called a question, though not so in form. But if it is a question, it is one
different from that at issue between the disciples of John and the Jews.
John replies to this question, but says nothing about purification, because
nothing with respect to it was submitted to him.
3. Mr. B. says that " the dispute in question was plainly a specific dis-
pute concerning baptism as practised by John and Jesus." The dispute
had no relation to the baptism of John and Jesus ; the dispute does not
imply the existence of the baptism of Jesus, nor of himself.
4. The author tells us that it was not " a general dispute on the sub-
FIRST REPLY TO PRESIDENT BEECHER. 431
ject at large." The dispute was a dispute on the subject of purification
generally. This does not admit dispute with respect to any who submit
to the assertion of the document. Katharismos is not a species of puri-
fication, but purification without reference to species. Mr. B. assumes
that katharismos is the appropriated name of the rite of baptism. This
is not only a groundless, but a false assumption. In early church history,
it came with a multitude of other words and phrases to be applied to
baptism, but at this period of its history it had no such application. At
this period, to speak among the Jews of baptism under the appropriated
name katharismos, would be to speak unintelligibly. Mr. B. mistakes
the meaning of katharismos as well as of baptismos. It could not come
to designate baptism specifically on any other principle than that of
appropriation, by which, though general in its original extent, it might
be limited by use. If assumption would do the business, Mr. B would
prove his point.
5. The writer tells us here that the phrase a question about purifica-
tion, is in sense the same as if it had been said, a question about baptism.
I have shown that this is false. But in addition to this I remark, that
even if the word baptism itself had been used instead of purification, it
would not have referred to a dispute concerning the conflicting claims
of John and Jesus. A question about baptism, and a question about
the conflicting claims of two persons engaged in baptizing, are surely
two very different questions. This confusion of ideas does not argue
well for the perspicacity of the antagonist with whom I am now about
to engage. Even on this supposition the dispute between the disciples
of John and the Jews about baptism, would have been a different mat-
ter from that submitted to John, and to which nothing in philosophy at
all applies.
6. Mr. B. makes the general word katharismos specific, in conformity
to the word baptizo, and the specific word baptizo he makes general, in
conformity to the word katharismos, so that in fact he makes each of
the words both general and specific. Why does he consider katharismos
specific? Because it here, he thinks, referte to the specific rite of bap-
tism. Why does he make baptizo here signify purification in general ?
Because he thinks it to be a synonyme of katharizo. Does not this make
each of the words both general and specific, at the same time ? Is this
philological ? This is critical legerdemain.
So confident is the writer that he has succeeded on this part of the
subject, that he adds, " The only mode of escaping this result is to say,
that as immersion in water involves purification, and is a kind of purifi-
cation, so it may have given rise to a question on the subject of purifi-
cation at large : but to this I reply, that the whole scope of the passage
forbids such an idea. The question was not general, but specific, being
caused by the concurrence of two claims to baptize ; and so was the
reply of John."
It is no part of my duty to show the process which led from one of
those questions to the other ; this it might be impossible to ascertain
without any injury to my cause. But nothing can be more natural than
that a question about purification should be suggested by a rite that was
432 FIRST REPLY TO PRESIDENT BEECHER.
an emblem of purification, and that this should lead to a comparison of
the baptism of John and of Jesus. But I will not deign to allege this
in argument : my business is with the document before me. Anything
expressed or necessarily implied, I will meet ; but I sternly refuse to
know anything but what is in evidence.
But what sort of a reply is this which the author gives to the argu-
ment which he professes to meet? The question, he says, is not general,
but specific. The question is expressly stated as general, and not specific;
for it* is a question about katharismos, which is purification without
regard to species. The word is as general as is purification, the corres-
ponding word in English. " It was caused," he says, " by the concur-
rence of two claims to baptize." It was not caused by the concurrence
of two claims to baptize ; for these claims are never mentioned with
regard to the dispute. If we had not the document in our hands, we
should be led to think, from Mr. B.'s representation, that the dispute
was between the disciples of John and the disciples of Jesus, with
respect to conflicting claims between their masters.
" Moreover," continues Mr. B., " to assume a general dispute on
purification renders the whole scope of the passage obscure ; as is evi-
dent from the fact, that those who have not seen that in this case katha-
rismos is a synonyme of baptismos, are much perplexed to see what a
dispute on purification in general has to do with the facts of the case."
Assume! Who is it that makes assumptions? We assume nothing
in the whole controversy. That the dispute was about purification, and
not about a specific rite of purification, is in express evidence from the
word. And what necessity is there to show how the statement to John,
and John's answer, bear on the subject of purification, when that state-
ment and that answer never glance at the question of purification ?
" The origin of the dispute, from the concurrence of two claims to
baptize," says the author, " is obviously indicated by the particle oun,
in ver. 25, showing undeniably that the events just narrated gave rise to
the question." How can any particle in the twenty-fifth verse indicate
the origin of the dispute, from the concurrence of two claims to baptize,
when previously to that verse there is no mention of such concurrence ?
If the question arose from the events just narrated, how could it arise
from a concurrence of conflicting claims? No doubt the dispute about
purification originated in the baptism of John ; but this does not imply
that baptism signifies purification, nor that purification signifies baptism.
"And what reason is there," says Mr. B., " for denying this conclu-
sion ? None but the fear of the result." It is not so, President Beecher :
fear of the result never in a single instance prevented me from admitting
a sound argument. I do not fear the result ; for truth is my object,
wherever it may lie. But in this instance I can have no temptation to
fear the result, because I could admit that purification here refers to
baptism specifically, and still defeat President Beecher. He has laboured
in vain ; he builds on a false first principle. He assumes that if two
words refer to the same ordinance, they must be identical in meaning.
Nothing is more unfounded — palpably unfounded. There are situations
in which two words may be interchanged at the option of the writer,
FIRST REPLY TO PRESIDENT BEECHER. 433
while they are not perfectly synonymous. They may so far agree that
they may be equally fitted to fill a situation, while each has a distinct
meaning. This is so obvious a truth, that I am perfectly astonished that
it should lie hid from the President of the College of Illinois. This is
a fact that lies on the very surface of philosophy ; there is hardly a page
of writing in which it might not be illustrated. The varied designations
given to the ordinance of baptism by the ancients, fully manifest the
truth of this observation. Baptism they called regeneration, yet they
did not consider that the word baptism and the word regeneration were
identical in meaning. Baptism was the name of the rite from its mode,
regeneration was the effect produced by the observance of the rite. They
called baptism renewing, renovation, or restoration, for a like reason ;
but they did not understand the word baptism to signify any of these.
Without exception, they all considered the word to mean immersion,
while they gave it other names from its nature, effects, &c. They called
baptism sanctification, because they supposed persons to be sanctified
by it ; not because they considered the two words as synonymous. They
called baptism illumination, and the baptized they called the illuminated;
yet they did not understand the word baptism as signifying illumination.
Illumination was the effect of the rite. They called baptism consecra-
tion, yet they did not do so because they considered the word to have
this meaning, but because the rite had this effect. They called baptism
initiation, because initiation was effected by the rite, not because it was
signified by the word baptism. They called baptism the laver or ivash-
ing; not because they considered the word to signify this, but because
washing was effected by immersion in pure water. They called baptism
the anointing; because, in their view, persons are anointed with the
Spirit in baptism ; not because baptism signifies anointing. They called
baptism the gift or grace ; yet they did not suppose that the word bap-
tism denoted gift or grace. They spoke of baptism as the seal, yet
they did not understand the word baptism as signifying seal. They
called baptism purification ; yet they did not on that account, with Presi-
dent Beecher, understand the word baptism as signifying purification.
Baptism was an immersion which produced purification. Would he
deserve the name of a philologist, who would say, that the word bap-
tism is identical in signification with all these words, and that all these
words are identical in signification with each other?
I might illustrate my doctrine by the various names which are given
to the followers of Christ. They are called Christians, disciples, believers,
saints, fyc. Are these words identical in meaning? Does not each
of these names designate the persons in a different manner ?
The very case in hand may be verified in our own language. When
it is asked, what is the name of the child ? it may sometimes be answer-
ed, " it is not yet baptized." Are we from this to conclude that the
word baptism is supposed to mean the giving of a name ? This is not
implied ; the thing implied is that the name is given in baptism. In like
manner, a vast variety of names is given to the rite of baptism, not
implying that they are synonymous with the word, but that they are
designations of the same ordinance.
55
434 FIRST REPLY TO PRESIDENT BEECHER.
The English word immerse itself, according to Mr. B.'s philology, may
be made to signify cleanse. The surgeon, after an operation, says,
" cleanse the instrument." The assistant immerses it in water. Im-
merse, then, signifies to cleanse.
Sprinkle may on the same principle be made to signify to purify.
Purification is effected by sprinkling, therefore sprinkling signifies puri-
fication. In Heb. ix. 22, the same thing that is called purging with
blood, is in the preceding case called sprinkling with blood. Does it
not follow from Mr. B.'s philology, that sprinkling means purging? But
is it not obvious to every child, that sprinkling designates the mode
of applying the blood, and purging the effect of the blood so applied?
Mr. B., then, has failed in every point. He has laboured to prove that
katharismos, John iii. 25, refers specifically to baptism, as practised by
John and Jesus. His proof I have demolished. He assumes that if
katharismos here refers to baptism, the words must be identical in
meaning. This I have shown to be a gross fallacy.
Section II. — The next argument by which Mr. B. endeavours to
prove that baptismos signifies purification, is taken from Malachi. " This
view alone," says he, " fully explains the existing expectation that the
Messiah would baptize. That the Messiah should immerse, is nowhere
foretold ; but that he should purify, is often and fully predicted : but
especially is this foretold in that last and prominent prophecy of Malachi,
(iii. 1 — 3,) which was designed to fill the eye of the mind of the nation,
until he came. He is here represented to the mind in all his majesty
and power, but amid all other ideas that of purifying is most prominent.
He was above all things to purify and purge, and that with power so
great, that few could endure the fiery day. Who may abide the day of
his coming, and who shall stand when he appeareth?
This is so destitute of all appearance of a bearing on the subject, that
it deserves no attention. It is answer sufficient to this allegation that
this prophecy could have been perfectly fulfilled, had no rite of purifica-
tion, in any mode, ever been appointed. It requires more than the
patience of Job, to be able to mention such an argument without ex-
pressing strong feelings. Could not Christ have been a Purifier, though
he had instituted neither baptism nor the Lord's supper ? His being
said then to be a Purifier, does not imply that a certain rite implying
purification, must be called purification. May not a rite import purifi-
cation, though purification is not its name? Even if it had been fore-
told by Malachi that the Messiah should appoint a rite of purification,
that rite might have been designated, not purification, but have had its
name from its mode, or a thousand other circumstances. It might have
been called immersion, or sprinkling, or effusion, according to the mode
appointed ; as it might have been designated from any one of a multi-
tude of other relations. Circumcision denoted purification, yet it had
its name from the external operation. The passover had its name on
the same principle. This argument manifests such a want of discrimi-
nation, and a confusion of things which differ, that the mind on which
it has force, must be essentially deficient in those powers that qualify for
the discussion of critical questions.
FIRST REPLY TO PRESIDENT BEECHER. 435
" Suppose, now, the word baptizo to mean as I affirm," says the
author, " the whole nation are expecting the predicted purifier ; all at
once the news goes forth that a great purifier has appeared, and that all
men flock to him and are purified in the Jordan. How natural the
inference ! The great purifier so long foretold, has at last appeared, and
how natural the embassy of the priests and Levites to inquire, Who art
thou ? And when he denied that he was the Messiah, or either of his
expected attendants, how natural the inquiry, 'Why purifiest thou, then?
It is his work — of him it is foretold, why dost thou intrude into his place
and do his work?' "
I might with perfect safety admit that on John's appearance, the
report went forth that a great purifier had appeared. For if he was a
great immerser, he was a great purifier, as immersion was for the purpose
of emblematical purification. He might, from the administration of this
ordinance, have been called a great purifier, while the name of the ordi-
nance was immersion, or sprinkling, or anything whatever. As a matter
of fact, however, the news did not go forth that a great purifier, but a
great immerser had appeared ; and it is not said that all men came and
were purified by him in Jordan, but that they were immersed. The
question of the priests and Levites was as apposite, on the supposition
that the word baptizo signified to immerse, or sprinkle, or pour, as if it
signified to purify ; because whatever was the mode and whatever v/as
the name, the nature of the ordinance implied purification. There is
no evidence that a general expectation prevailed that the Messiah should
baptize, or use any rite of purification ; and had there been such an
expectation, and even a prophecy on which to found it, the fact could
make no difference. The question put to John, on the supposition that
he was not the Messiah, was not founded either on the name or the
nature of the rite, but on his employing a new rite. If he was not the
Messiah, or at least Elias, or the prophet, they judged it improper for
him to introduce a new baptism. It was not with the name of the rite
they quarrelled. Does Mr. B. imagine that had the name of the rite been
immersion, the question of the priests and Levites would have been pre-
cluded ? Such reasoning is perfectly an astonishment to me. I have
greater difficulty in conceiving how it can have force on any mind, than
I have in refuting it. How can any discriminating person think that the
priests and Levites objected to John's baptism on the ground that to use
this rite was to intrude into the work of the Messiah, when on the very ques-
tion it is admitted that the thing might be done by Elias or the prophet?
Is it not astonishing that gentlemen in eminent situations, will risk the
character of their understanding by pouring forth such crudities? It is
painful for me to use the knife so freely : but I must, for the sake of the
Christian public, find out the disease under which my patient labours.
It is better that one delinquent should suffer, than that a multitude
should be drawn into error by his transgression.
" In view of these facts," says the writer, " I do not hesitate to
believe most fully, that the idea which came up before the mind of the
Jews when the words loannes o Baptistes were used, was not John the
immerser, or John the dipper, but John the purifier, a name peculiarly
436 FIRST REPLY TO PRESIDENT BEECHER.
appropriate to him as a reformer — as Puritan was to our ancestors, and
for the same reason."
In view of these facts ! Shall he by sleight of hand be allowed to con-
vert his suppositions into facts? What are the facts? Are we with the
child to take his dreams for realities? There is not in all the references
Dne fact that will bear the conclusion.
But there is an inconsistency in this specimen of philology: it makes
the title of John originate in the administration of a rite of purification,
yet its adaptation to him is grounded on his being a reformer, for the
same reason that our ancestors were called Puritans. Now. if John was
the purifier as the administrator of a rite, he was not a purifier as a
reformer. If he was a purifier as a reformer, he would have been a
purifier had he administered no baptism at all. There is great confusion
in the ideas of this writer. If John was called the purifier on account
of the rite which he administered, he was not so called as a Puritan.
This is my philology.
Section III. — Mr. B.'s next argument is, " The contrast made by
John between his own baptism and that of Christ, illustrates and con-
firms the same view."
Without adverting to Acts ii. 1, which is evidently a fulfilment of
John's declaration referred to, the phrase immersed in the Spirit, as refer-
ring to the ordinary work of the Spirit, is perfectly analogous to steeping
the senses in forgetfuhiess , with which all are acquainted; and the contrast
between the immersion of the rite, and the sanctification of the Spirit,
is exactly on the same principle with " Be not drunk with wine, but be
filled with the Spirit." The abundance of the Spirit in sanctification is
contrasted with the abundance of wine in the drunkard. If we may be
said to he filled with the Spirit, in contrast with the drunkard filled with
wine, may we not be said to be immersed in the Spirit, in contrast with
the immersion in water in the rite of baptism ? The contrast is obvious
and just. Is it not sometimes said of persons distinguished for humanity
and kindness, that their souls are steeped in the milk of human nature ?
There is no more incongruity in immersing a person in the Spirit, than
there is in steeping a soul in milk. Such arguments and such objections
are mere trifling.
" This sense," continues Mr. B., " is never transferred to the mind, in
any language, so far as I know, to indicate anything like the effects of
the agency of the Holy Spirit.
Were this true, it is nothing to the purpose ; but having by the use
of the language found that the word has this meaning, and no other, the
example in question is an instance in which it is applied to the Holy
Spirit. Mr. B. has adopted some of my philological doctrines. I will
give him another lesson, which will prevent him from again alleging
such an objection. It is this : Metaphor is not bound to find examples
to justify its particular figures ; but may indulge itself wherever it finds
resemblance. It gives words a new application, but does not invest them
with a new meaning. It is not, then, subject to the law of literal
language, which, for the sense of every word, needs the authority of use.
FIRST REPLY TO PRESIDENT BEECHER. 437
This I have established in my Treatise on the Figures of Speech, in
opposition to the common doctrine of rhetoricians. With respect to the
point in hand, I would maintain my ground, if a single other example of
the figurative use of this word could not be produced. Any word may
be used figuratively in any view in which there is likeness. This argu-
ment of Mr. B. is perfectly the same with that of Dr. Wiseman in
proof of transubstantiation. He admits that the phrases, this is my body,
and eat my Jlesh, may be used figuratively ; but if they are used figura-
tively, they are always used in a bad sense He challenges his opponents
to show an instance in which it is otherwise. Now this sophism has, in
my doctrine of the metaphor, a complete answer. Metaphors are not
bound by the law of literal language : they need not the sanction of use.
A writer may use as many as are just in resemblance ; and the more
original they are, they are the more meritorious.
But what shall we think of the philologist, who says, " When the agent
is spiritual, the object spiritual, and the means spiritual, and the end
purity, immersion is out of the question?" Must I dignify such trifling
with refutation ? When God says, I will potir out my Spirit, is not the
agent spiritual, the object spiritual, and the means spiritual, and the end
purity ? Shall we, then, blaspheme the word of God, and say, pouring
is out of the question ? Literal pouring and immersing are out of the
question, not figurative pouring and immersing. If one mode of employ-
ing water may be figuratively applied to the Spirit, what will prevent
another mode from being applied? Ignorant persons in reading Mr. B.'s
work will think that he is a deep philosopher, and that he is a profound
philologist. But the smallest degree of perspicacity will enable any one
to see that his philosophy is very shallow sophistry. I have no wish to
be severe ; but no man ought with impunity to be allowed to trifle so
egregiously with the disciples of Christ, and with the awful command-
ments of the eternal Jehovah.
The author thinks that his view is confirmed by comparing the
language of John with the passage from Malachi, and refers to the word
diakathai'iei. But how could it escape him that the purging of the floor
refers not to baptism at all in any view? Indeed, it refers not even to
the work of the Spirit in sanctification, but is the separating of the chaff
from the wheat. But I will for a moment indulge him in his whim.
Let this purging be baptism ; may it not be immersion in mode, and
purging as an emblem ? The language of Malachi and the purification
of John would equally accord with any meaning that may be assigned
to the word baptism. I have never found a greater want of discrimina-
tion in any writer.
Section IV. — Mr. B. deduces another argument, from 1 Cor. xii. 13.
In this passage he tells us, "The Holy Spirit is directly said to baptize,
and in this case all external acts are of course excluded, and purify is
the only appropriate sense: 'For by one Spirit are we all baptized into
one body, and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.' " Now can
anything be more extravagantly idle than this ? When the Holy Spirit
is said to be poured out by God, are not all external acts equally
438 FIRST REPLY TO PRESIDENT BEECHER.
excluded? Are we, then, to say that cheo does not signify to pour?
Believers are said to have their hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience.
All external acts are out of the question. Shall we, then, say that
rantizo does not signify to sprinkle? Believers are said to wash their
robes, and to make them white in the blood of the Lamb. All external
acts are out of the question. Are we, then, to say that pluno does not
signify to wash ? Am I to war eternally against nonsense ? Even the
very examples alleged by himself from Chrysostom, p. 23, refute him.
Is there any literal immersion in the phrases immersed in cares, immersed
in sins, immersed in business ?
" But this baptism," says Mr. B., " is as much a real work of the
Spirit, as the causing to drink into one Spirit, which is not external, but
internal and real." Who doubts it ? But how can he be so blind as
not to perceive that though " causing to drink of the Spirit," is an in-
ternal work of the Spirit, yet drink of the Spirit is as much a figure
relating to an external action, as is immerse by the Spirit ? If believers
are here said to be immersed by the Spirit, they are also said to be made
to drink by the same Spirit. Is not drinking as much an external
action as immersing ? If we may figuratively drink, may we not figura-
tively be immersed? The writer has so little perspicacity as to argue
against a figurative meaning with respect to the word immerse, by the
very authority of a like figurative meaning with regard to drink. If
there is spiritual drinking, may there not be spiritual immersing ? But
we have not yet done with Mr. B.'s exploits in figurative language. He
says that the drinking here referred to is not external, but internal and
real. According to this philosophy, literal drinking is not real drinking .
" To immerse in water," he tells us, " is not the work of the Spirit."
Where is it said, Mr. B., that the Holy Spirit baptizes in water? And
is it the work of the Spirit to pour himself out on believers literally ?
Is it the work of the Spirit literally to sprinkle the heart ? Such cavil-
ling is unworthy of a candid mind and a sound understanding.
Mr. B. founds another argument on the relation which the words
baptize and purify have to the forgiveness of sins. " Baptizo and
katharizo," says he, " are so similarly used in connexion with the for-
giveness of sins, as decidedly to favour the idea that they are in a
religious sense synonymous." This is philological mathematics ; and if
there is no error in the statement, or in the process, it is the evidence of
an axiom. — Two quantities that are equal to a third are equal to one
another. But a mere breath will destroy this mathematical bubble. It
is not as words that baptize and purify agree with forgiveness of sins :
for neither baptism nor purif cation is as a word identical in meaning
with forgiveness of sins. Baptism is connected with the forgiveness of
sins, not from its name, but from the nature and import of the rite. If
baptism in its import is essentially connected with forgiveness of sins, it
will have the same relation to purification, whatever be its name.
Faith is essentially connected with the forgiveness of sins, as well as
purification. Is faith purification ? Holiness is essentially connected
with the forgiveness of sins, as well as faith. Is holiness faith? Repent-
ance is essentially connected with the forgiveness of sins as well as
FIRST REPLY TO PRESIDENT BEECHER. 439
purification. Is repentance purification ? On the same principle Uni-
tarians allege that forgiveness of sins, in reference to Christ, is synony-
mous with healing diseases.
But it is strange to astonishment that President Beecher has not per-
ceived that baptism would have the same connexion with the forgiveness
of sins, whatever might have been the word employed as its designation.
If the nature of the rite imports purification, though its name is immer-
sion, has it not perfectly the same relation to the forgiveness of sins, as
if its name were purification? Take any of the names assigned to it by
the ancients, and you will still have the same connexion with the for-
giveness of sins. But does each of these words signify purification ? If
baptism is called regeneration, it is connected with the forgiveness of
sins. Must the word regeneration on that account signify purification?
This argument proceeds on an amazing want of discrimination. Many
things essentially connected with the forgiveness of sins are entirely
different from one another. Baptism is a rite emblematical of purifica-
tion ; but this does not imply that its name must signify purification.
The passover was a rite which was an emblem of atonement through
the blood of Christ, or if you will, of purification. Does this imply that
the word passover signifies purification or atonement? Whether the rite
of baptism is called pouring, or sprinkling, or immersing, or popping,
or purifying, or consecrating, or initiating, or regeneration, &c. &c,
it has the same relation to the forgiveness of sins. The blood of Christ
cleanses from all sin : baptism emblematically cleanses from sin : the
blood of Christ, then, and the emblematical meaning of baptism, have
the same relations to the forgiveness of sins. Does it follow that the
phrases, blood of Christ and the word baptism, are synonymous?
Mr. B. gives us a dissertation on purification, which is no more to the
purpose than a treatise on logarithms. He then tells us, " between
immersion and the forgiveness of sins no such associations had ever been
established." Does not the writer here take for granted the very thing
in dispute? He set out with saying that baptizo and katharizo are
similarly used with respect to the forgiveness of sins : now he says that
immersion has no such connexion. But if baptizo has such a connexion,
immerse must have the same connexion, as it is the only proper transla-
tion of the word that has this connexion. Whatever connexion baptizo
has with the forgiveness of sins, immerse has the same connexion.
There is another false principle at the bottom of this remark : it
supposes that if baptism is connected with the forgiveness of sins, its
name must denote this connexion. It supposes also, that if a word has
the same connexion with the forgiveness of sins with another word, it
must have the same meaning with that word. This is another false
principle. Circumcision was connected with the forgiveness of sins in
the same manner as purification; but did the word circumcision denote
either purification or forgiveness of sins? It was the nature of the rite
of which circumcision was the name, which indicated purification, and
was connected with the forgiveness of sins. It is the water in baptism
that indicates purification, notjthe name of the, rite. Immersion is an
emblem of the believer's communion and oneness with Christ, in his
440 FIRST REPLY TO PRESIDENT BEECHER.
death, burial, and resurrection. If mere purification was designated by
baptism, sprinkling or pouring might have been used as well as immerse.
But immersion represents the whole spiritual body of Christ as dying
with him, buried with him, risen with him. As members of the body of
Christ, they have done and suffered whatever Christ has done and suf-
fered for them. True views of the import of baptism are essentially
connected with clear views of the Gospel.
" Now if any word," says Mr. B., " is found to sustain the same rela-
tions as Icatharizo to the same idea, forgiveness of sins, we have reason
to think that it is used in the same sense." Here is a philological axiom ;
but it is a philological sophism. First, it assumes that it is baptismos
as a word, that is, that it is the meaning of the word, that has the sup-
posed relation to the forgiveness of sins. But baptismos has this rela-
tion only as designatory of an ordinance, which in its nature implies
purification. Baptismos has this relation to the forgiveness of sins, only
as it refers to the rite of baptism.
Secondly, the conclusion is false, even on the ground on which it pro-
ceeds. Two words may have the same relation to the forgiveness of
sins, yet not be identical in meaning. Faith, repentance, regeneration,
&c, have the same relation to the forgiveness of sins, yet they are very
far from being identical. If each of the words signified forgiveness of
sins, they must all indeed have the same signification ; but none of
these signifies forgiveness of sins. This is a childish fallacy.
He concludes this argument with the following deduction : " Hence,
as baptizo has the same extent of application with Icatharizo, and as it
stands in the same relations with it to the forgiveness of sins, it is highly
probable that it has the game sense." Here, again, he assumes the
point in debate. Has he found that baptizo has the same extent of
application with Icatharizo? If this is in evidence, what is the dispute?
It has not the same extent of application; for it applies to no. purifica-
tions but such as were immersions. His business is to prove that it has
such an extent of application — not to assume this as a ground of argument.
But the author is very modest; having assumed that baptizo has the
same extent of application with Icatharizo, instead of bearing down on
me with all the force of an axiom, he is contented with claiming a high
probability. What ! highly probable ! If the words are of the same
extent in application, they are perfectly identical in meaning. What is
sameness of sense, but sameness of extent of application ? Not only has
Mr. B. failed in proving his point by this argument, but I maintain that
on such ground it is impossible to prove the meaning of a word. No
sound philologist would ever think of availing himself of such are source.
Mr. B.'s next argument is, that "the account of baptism given by Jose-
phus, a contemporary Jew, is perfectly in accordance with this view."
The account which Josephus gives of the baptism of John in no
respect confirms the view of President Beecher. Why did he not produce
his document? Is he to decide as a judge? Ought he not as a lawyer
to exhibit his documents and his statutes, reasoning from their necessary
import? Josephus represents John as exhorting the people, practising
justice towards each other; and piety towards God, to come to immersion;
FIRST REPLY TO PRESIDENT BEECHER. 441
declaring that the immersing would be acceptable to God, when done,
not in deprecation of the punishment of any sins, but for the purifica-
tion or lustration of the body, — the soul being previously purified by
righteousness. Josephus, as might be expected, gives a very false view
of the object of John's baptism ; but with respect to the meaning of its
name he could not be mistaken. Instead of representing this name as
signifying purification in its meaning, he represents the object of it to
be purification. They come to baptism for the lustration (epi agneia) of
the body. Does not this imply that baptism is one thing, and lustration
another? Mr. B. confounds a thing with its effect. Baptism is the
name of the rite from its mode : lustration is its effect from its nature,
being an immersion in pure water.
This is confirmed by the contrast which Josephus states, denying it
to be the proper object of baptism- — namely the deprecation of punish-
ment (epi paraitesei). This is an object which he supposes some might
have, but which woidd not be acceptable to God. Here purification of
the body is the lawful object of baptism; deprecation of punishment is
a wrong object. Now we might as well confound deprecation of pun-
ishment with the meaning of the word baptism, as confound purification
with it ; for both are supposed to be its object — the one a lawful object,
the other an unlawful one. Does baptism, then, signify deprecation of
punishment, because it may be used for that purpose 1 It is this exces-
sive deficiency in perspicacity that has emboldened Mr. B. to undertake
to prove that baptismos signifies purification. He every where confounds
things that are different. From this he thinks he has succeeded, when
he finds baptism spoken of as a purification ; not distinguishing between
the name of the rite and its object. If one word can supply the
place of another in a certain situation, he thinks they must be synony-
mous. If Josephus speaks of baptism as performed on account of
purification, he states that he has proved the word baptism signifies puri-r
fication. By this philology he might prove that the word bapto signifies
to draw water, or to fill, because these words could sometimes be sub-
stituted for it. In one of the examples of the occurrence of this word,
which I gave in my Treatise, the translation is : " the youth held the
capacious urn over the water, hasting to dip it." Here fill might be
substituted for dip; but does dip signify to fill? Dipping is the mode
by which the vessel is to be filled. The filling of the vessel was the
effect of the dipping; just so with the case in hand. Immersion is the
mode — purification is the object. They were two things as different as
dipping and filling. One of the scholiasts, in expounding my next ex-
ample, actually substitutes the words aruomai and chemizo, I draw water
— I fill. " Take a vessel, ancient servant, and having dipped it in the
sea, bring it hither." On Mr. B.'s principles of criticism, this would be
sufficient authority to say that aruomai and chemizo are synonymous with
bapto. Even our own word dip might be made synonymous with fill.
We may say either dip the bucket, or fill the bucket. The writer who
confounds distinctions on account of such facts, has not a soul for philo-
logical discussion.
But were we at a loss, on this occasion, to know in what sense Jose-
56
442 FIRST REPLY TO PRESIDENT BEECHER.
phus here uses the word in question, where can we learn this with such
authority as from his own use of the word in other places ? In every
instance in which he uses the word, he employs it for immersion, and
never for purification or anything else.
Section V. — Mr. B. passes next to Heb. ix. 10. But this passage
cannot afford him any proof. For argument sake, I will first admit that
the word here is used for purification in general. As it does not refer
to the rite of baptism, it may have a secondary signification here, with-
out affecting its modal meaning in the Christian ordinance. Had a word
twenty significations, they must in every instance be capable of being
definitely ascertained ; otherwise language would be unintelligible. That
it is used here in a religious application, makes no difference. Bapto
even in the art of dyeing may be used in the same page for dyeing and
for dipping ; and though it has a secondary signification of dyeing, it is
often used with respect to religious dipping. The admission, then, that
the word here signifies purification, does not at all affect the question at
issue. I have undertaken to prove that the word has not a secondary
meaning; but I have not done so on the ground that this is necessary
for the proof of its modal meaning, in reference to the ordinance of
baptism. Now, how can this prove that the word in reference to Chris-
tian baptism signifies purification, when I can admit all that Mr. B.
attempts to prove from the passage, without admitting his conclusion?
The proof which I have adduced for the modal meaning of the word
in reference to the ordinance of Christ, remains still unaffected.
But instead of surrendering this passage, I utterly refuse to admit
that the word has here a secondary signification. It is immersion here
as well as every where else. Let us now examine my antagonist's
reasoning.
1. " Those things only are spoken of in the whole discussion," says
he, " which have a reference to action on the worshippers ; that is, the
whole passage relates to the effects of the Mosaic ritual entirely on per-
sons, and not on things. The gifts, the sacrifices, the blood of sprink-
ling, the ashes of a heifer sprinkling the unclean, all relate to persons."
To this I reply, — 1. Whether the word here signifies immersion or
purification, it must extend to all the immersions or all the purifications
under the law. I am under no concern to separate between action on
persons, and action on things. If things were commanded to be im-
mersed, which had no reference to persons, they must be included here,
if the word signifies immersion. And if the word signifies purification,
and if things are commanded to be purified which have no reference to
persons, they must be here included. This distinction can bring no
relief: for whether the word signifies immersion or purification, it must
extend to all things immersed or purified.
2. The things admitted by Mr. B. to be immersed, had an equal rela-
tion to the person, as " the gifts, the sacrifices, the blood of sprinkling."
Every thing immersed, or sprinkled, or in any way purified, had a refer-
ence to the worshippers. The vessels which they used, the garments
which they wore, the utensils which in the service they employed,
FIRST REPLY TO PRESIDENT BEECHER. 443
had all a reference to their persons as much as the things which they
offered.
3. Are not meats and drinks among the things referred to in this
chapter 1 And had not their vessels, sacks and skins, a reference to their
persons, as well as the meats and drinks?
4. Was not the blood of sprinkling sprinkled on other things beside
their persons, and as little connected with their persons, as the things
admitted to be immersed ? Was not the water of separation sprinkled
on the tents and all the vessels, as well as all the persons?
5. But I care not that every purification referred to in the whole
chapter, referred to persons solely and directly, except in this instance.
I am not disturbed with the supposed fact. Whatever be the meaning
of the word, it must extend to every thing it includes, whether it signifies
immersion or purification.
6. Even if the word here signified purifications, it must include the
very things which Mr. B excluded. If certain things are admitted to
be immersed by the law, are they not purified by that operation? Then,
though immersion should not be the only purification here denoted, it is
at least included among the purifications. This refutes the assertion
that the things admitted to be immersed, cannot be included here among
the things said to be purified.
Mr. B. proceeds : " The baptismoi are spoken of as enjoined, as well as
the other rites. But of persons no immersions at all are enjoined under
the Mosaic ritual." I have already shown that it is not necessary that
immersion of persons should have been practised under the law, in order
that the word should here signify immersions. There is no evidence that
the baptism here spoken of must refer to persons. They are not said to
be the baptisms of persons, nor are they said even to include the baptism
of persons. It is enough for my purpose that there were various immer-
sions under the law. There were immersions in blood, immersions in
blood and water; immersions in water, immersions in water and the
ashes of a red heifer ; immersions in oil, and immersions in fire. But
even if the word were admitted here to denote purifications, it must
include all purification, and extend to the immersion of things.
But though it is not essential to the defence of my cause, to prove the
immersions of persons under the law, I will undertake the task with all
its supposed impossibilities. I admit that the Hebrew modal verb is not
used with respect to persons, yet other circumstances imply that the
mode of washing was immersion. How did they wash Aaron and his
sons at the door of the tabernacle ? Exod. xxix. 4. Must there not
have been an immersion ? Was there not constantly an immersion of
the hands and the feet of the priests, before engaging in the service ?
Exod. xxx. 18 — 20. Now, an immersion of the hands, or the feet, is to
me as good as an immersion of the whole body fifty feet under water.
Let it not be forgotten that we are not discussing a passage for an example
of Christian baptism, but one that speaks of Jewish baptism : and an
immersion of a part is to me as good as an immersion of the whole. All
I want is an immersion of any part of the person.
Solomon made ten lavers for the washing of such things as they
444 FIRST REPLY TO PRESIDENT BEECHER.
offered for the burnt-offering. This was one of the baptisms under the
law. But he made a sea for the priests to wash themselves. 2 Chron. iv. 6
Was not this washing performed by immersion ?
Let it be observed that the apostle is here speaking of the Jewish
baptisms as practised under the law, and not giving an account of their
institution. It is certainly implied that the baptisms referred to were
agreeable to the law, and a fulfilment of it ; but it is not necessary that
they should have been presented specifically as the only mode of fulfilling
the law of washing. If immersion was the usual mode of washing the
person, and if that mode fulfilled the law, may not a writer in giving an
account of the practice, include the immersion of the person among the
immersions under the law ? Was it not a fact that under the law there
was an immersion of the person, when it is admitted that the washing of
the person commanded by the law was usually performed by immersion,
and that this immersion was a proper fulfilment of the law ? It is not
necessary that immersion should be the only mode in which the law of
washing the person could possibly be fulfilled ; it is quite enough that
it was the usual way, and a lawful way. This may be proved by a
similar fact. The immersion of Naaman was a fulfilment of the com-
mand of Elisha, yet it was a specific way of fulfilling a command to
wash without specification of mode. Is it not said that in obedience
to the command of the prophet, Naaman dipped himself seven times in
Jordan? Now, if the thing prescribed to Naaman had been a rite
enjoined on all the Jews, which in every age they usually fulfilled by
dipping, would not an historian speak of this as an immersion under the
law ? I think no sound understanding can hesitate a moment to receive
this solution. This is confirmed by the fact that Trypho in Justin
Martyr, p. 228, speaks of ablution after touching any of the things for-
bidden by the law of Moses, as baptism; and Justin Martyr every where
uses the word for immersion.
" Nor is the washing of the clothes," says Mr. Beecher, " so often
spoken of, enjoined by a word denoting immersion." Very true, but are
clothes washed without immersion ? In speaking, then, of the practice
under the law, was not the washing of clothes the immersion of clothes?
But are not clothes and all other things that cannot endure the purifica-
tion of fire, to pass through water ? Can they pass through water with-
out being immersed? Numb. xxxi. 23.
Section VI. — The argument from Tobit vi. 2 is utterly valueless. —
1. This is not ceremonial purification, or fulfilment of the law of Moses.
The young man went down to the river to bathe, not to cleanse himself
from ceremonial defilement. The object of the writer in bringing his
hero to the river, was to bring about the exploit with the fish.
2. That complete washing of the person without immersion is possible,
we are not obliged to deny. No other washing, however, is called
baptism. If a man washes himself without immersion, he washes without
baptism.
3. This washing is not called baptism.
4. Mr. B. here mistakes the argument of the Baptists, which he here
FIRST REPLY TO PRESIDENT BEECHER. 445
represents. When he asks for what purpose the young man went down
to the river, he answers: "to immerse himself of course, the advocates
of immersion will reply." This is not fact. Bathing or washing is the
object : immersion is the mode in which that object is effected. But as
the mode implies the effect, the mode may be substituted for the object,
and instead of saying he went down to bathe, it may be said he went
down to dip himself. The Baptists will not say that immersion was the
object, but that immersion was the mode of effecting the object. If he
went down to bathe, of course he was dipped.
5. But Mr. B.'s criticism on the Greek word kluzo, here employed for
washing, is entirely false. He expounds the word as signifying a wash-
ing all around, "just as a man stands in a stream and throws the water
all over his body, and washes himself by friction." Mr. B. criticises
from imagination — not from knowledge of the language. Has he justified
his criticism by a single example ? He seems better acquainted with
the different circumstances in the operation of bathing, than with the
occurrences of the word on which he undertakes to criticise. The simple
word signifies to deluge, to overwhelm, to inundate, or flow over any-
thing, and is generally applied to water flowing or rolling in a horizontal
manner. It is much employed in the medical art, and occurs in Hip-
pocrates times without number. It is compounded with almost all the
prepositions, and is accordingly modified by them, k is applied to the
waves of the sea rolling over the shores, or running in high currents or
billows in the ocean. It is with kata applied to the general deluge.
With peri, the preposition with which it is here compounded, (periklu-
sasthai) it is applied to the earth which is all around, as to its shores,
washed or overflowed by the waves of the ocean ; and the adjective as
an epithet is given as a characteristic of islands. It has no application
to the throwing up of water about himself by a man standing in a river.
There is no friction nor hand-washing in this word. It performs its
purpose by running over, either gently or with violence. The word does
not signify that the young man in bathing splashed about like a duck,
or rubbed himself like a collier ; but that he threw himself into the river
that the stream might flow over him. He was then baptized indeed, and
much more than baptized.
6. Even according to his own showing, the argument which Baptists
found on going down to a river is not refuted, nor weakened. The
young man went down to the river to wash his whole person by friction.
Does this countenance the opinion that persons usually go down to a river,
to sprinkle a few drops of water on the face? He admits that it is pro-
bable that the young man immersed himself also. This, then, was not
less than baptism, but more than baptism. Indeed, if the rite of Christ
required a whole hogshead of water to be poured on the person, there
could be no necessity to go down to the water. But in performing the
rite of baptism, persons went not only down to the water, but into the
water, which to every candid mind must ever prove immersion. From
the manner in which the author ushers in his observations on this sub-
ject, one would think that he had made a discovery that would silence
the argument for ever. "Whole volumes," says he, "of argument,
446 FIRST REPLY TO PRESIDENT BEECHER.
as we all know, depend on going down to the river." Whatever are the
number of volumes that have been written to enforce this argument, it
remains in full force for anything this author has done. But it requires
only a naked statement, to make it irresistibly evident to any mind not
jaundiced by prejudice.
" The only immersions enjoined in the Mosaic law," says Mr. B.,
" were immersions of things to which no reference can be had here — as
vessels, sacks, skins, &c. In this case no act was performed that had
any tendency to affect the icorshipper, but only the thing immersed."
What! Does Mr. B. assert that the purification of vessels, &c, had
no relation to the worshipper ? Was it for the sake of the vessels, sacks,
and skins, that they were purified? Was it not because the things
immersed were used by the worshipper ? Were not their vessels purified
for the very same reason that their persons were purified ? Had not the
vessels, &c. been purified, the worshipper using them would have been
defiled. What had God's law to do with the purification of the vessels,
&c. of the Jews more than of the heathens, but from the connexion of
those things with the worshippers? Did ever so monstrous an idea
enter the mind of man, as that God commanded a rite to be performed
on vessels, &c. which had no reference to the worshipper, but only to
the things immersed? I should not have thought that there could have
been found a Christian child, who would make such an assertion. Had
not the vessels, &c. the same relation to the worshipper, as the meats
and drinks here specified ? What nearer relation had a pure sacrifice
to the worshipper, than had a pure vessel ? Are not vessels, &c. ordi-
nances of the flesh as well as meats and drinks? In fact, every thing
enjoined or forbidden in the ritual ordinances of Moses, had a reference
to the flesh ; they are all carnal ordinances.
What does Mr. B. mean when he asserts, that " no reference can be
had to the immersions of inanimate things, but only to the purification
of persons ?" Are meats and drinks persons ? Are gifts and sacrifices
persons ? Are the various things mentioned belonging to the tabernacle,
persons? Had not the vessels which a man used the same relation to
his flesh, as the meats which he ate ? Why must the baptisms be con-
fined to persons ? The inanimate things immersed, had the same refer-
ence to the persons of the worshippers, as had the gifts and sacrifices,
as had the meats and drinks, as had all the things specified in this
chapter.
" What could any one think," says Mr. B., " that the immersion of
vessels, of earth or wood, had to do with the purifying of the conscience
or the heart of a worshipper?" The immersion of those things had
just as much to do with purifying the conscience, as had the purifica-
tion of the person. Neither of them could purify the conscience : both
of them purified ceremonially as types of that which truly purifies ; and
the purification of all our services is as necessary as the purification of
our persons. If men, mistaking the meaning of the rites, might think
that the purification of the body cleansed the conscience, so migl.
they think of the purification of vessels. Did they immerse the vessels,
sacks, and skins, to purify the conscience of the vessels, sacks, and
FIRST REPLY TO PRESIDENT BEECHER. 447
skins? Can anything be more plain than that the true relation, and the
falsely supposed effect of the Jewish rites to the persons of the worship-
pers, were the same with respect to what was to be performed on inani-
mate things, as to what were to be performed on the person itself? For
what purpose were inanimate things purified, if they had no relation to
the persons of the worshippers ?
For a full answer to the objection from the epithet divers or different,
I refer to my reply to the Presbyterian Review. I shall here merely
observe, that though immersion is always the same as to mode, there
may be innumerable different immersions. An immersion of the body
is a different immersion from the immersion of things. An immersion
of a variety of different things is in each a different immersion. An
immersion of every different substance is a different immersion.
Why immersions are mentioned rather than purifications in general,
it is not my business to declare : all I have to do is to show that immer-
sions and not purifications are mentioned. It is to me quite obvious
that there is no necessity to mention purifications universally in this
place : the apostle is not professing to exhaust the subject of purifica-
tion, but to give a specimen of the things practised under the law, to
point out their insufficiency to purge the conscience ; and other purifi-
cations are mentioned in other parts of the epistle. But I observe not
this as a controversialist. In that character I do not give an opinion,
nor undertake to satisfy an opponent. There may be reasons which we
cannot perceive. Our business is not to account for God's reasons for
not saying what he has not said, but to discover what he has said. I act
on this principle in every instance, as well as in this. I endeavour to find
out the meaning of the Holy Spirit, by the words which he has used ;
not by speculations and opinions with respect to what he should say.
" No man," says Mr. B., " who had not a theory to support, could
bring himself to do such violence to all the laws of interpretation in a
case so plain." I think I am entitled to ask, with indignation, the ground
on which my antagonist presumes to make this assertion. I have no
theory to support. I never use theories in ascertaining the truths and
the ordinances of Christ ; I interpret by the laws of language. Neither
have I any philological doctrine which demands my denial of such a
secondary signification of this word. How can I have a theory to sup-
port in denying such a secondary meaning, when it is my doctrine that
words might receive such secondary meanings ? The process by which,
in various instances, such secondary significations are imposed on words,
I have exemplified in some of their wildest caprices. Mr. B. himself is
in this doctrine merely my pupil. As far as he is right, he has adopted
my philology ; and has illustrated it merely by different examples. Must
I, then, in opposing his conclusion, have a theory to support in opposi-
tion to my own doctrine ? Mr. Bickersteth's friend, in proof that the
word in question, from signifying baptism by immersion, came to signify
baptism in any way, alleged the authority of my own doctrine against
myself. There was, however, a trifling deficiency in his reasoning. He
proved from my doctrine that the word might come to have such a
meaning ; but he forgot to prove that it actually underwent the supposed
448 FIRST REPLY TO PRESIDENT BEECHER.
process. Perfectly on the same principle Mr. Beecher shows, from my
doctrine, that the word might come to signify purification ; but he has
not proved that, in the history of the word before the time of Christ, it
actually received such a meaning. The principle I do not dispute ; it
is my own principle. What temptation, then, can I have, from any
theory of mine, to dispute this secondary meaning?
Again, I can have as little temptation from interest or popularity, to
do violence to any passage in order to prove a particular mode of any
religious ordinance. Have I made a fortune by immersion? Would
purifications destroy me ? Should I become less popular among Chris-
tians, or with the world, by returning to sprinkling 1 If emblematical
purification by sprinkling or pouring were optional, as well as by immer-
sion, I would most assuredly never immerse. Besides, why should I do
violence to this passage, in order to reject purification as its meaning,
when I could admit this meaning here, and still, with the utmost ease,
prove immersion to be the mode of Christ's ordinance ? Were I ever so
partial to water, Mr. B.'s good-natured doctrine will indulge me, and
allow me to immerse as freely as to sprinkle. I can have no possible
reason, then, for confining the word in this passage to immersion, but the
innumerable proofs that it has this meaning, and the absence of all proof
that it ever has any other. I should act perfectly in the same way, if
the dispute were solely of a literary nature, and the question were the
mode of a heathen rite.
But should it be admitted that the word here is confined to persons,
and that it includes washings of the person in every mode, still this
would not countenance the opinion that it signifies purifications. All
ceremonial washings were purifications ; but all purifications were not
washings. Washings and purifications are not synonymous.
Section VII. — Mr. B. next presents us with the usual objection from
Mark vii. 4, and Luke xi. 38. " In Mark vii. 4, 8, and in Luke xi. 38,
katharizo is the natural and obvious sense of baptizo, and katharismos
of baptismos." Let us hear the proof. "1. This sense," says the writer,
" fulfils perfectly all the exigencies of the passages." And if it did, I
care not. Many a false sense may fulfil all the exigencies of the con-
nexion. This false sense, however, has not even this merit ; whereas,
immersion is quite suitable to the connexion, and immersion is the only
meaning of the word in every instance in the whole compass of the
language.
" I know, indeed," says the writer, "that it is said by some, that in
Mark there is a rise in the idea from the lesser washing of the hands,
which was common before all meals, to the greater washing implied in
the immersion of the body after coming from the market. But, on the
other hand, there is simply a rise from the specific to the general and
indefinite. They always wash their hands before meals ; and when they
return from market they also purify themselves (as the nature of the
case may require) before they eat." A rise from the specific to the
general and indefinite ! This indeed is a new climax. This is Gothic
rhetoric. A rise from the washing of the hands to the immersion of the
FIRST REPLY TO PRESIDENT BEECHER. 449
whole body, or the washing of the body in any mode, is a rise which all
can understand ; but a rise from the washing of the hands to indefinite
purifications is a fall. Mr. B.'s own phraseology is nonsense : " They
also purify themselves." Does not also imply that the washing of the
hands is not purification ? This is not an advancement from a species of
purification to purification in general, but an advancement from what is
supposed not to be purification to purification. But such an advance
might be an advance backwards. The washing of the hands is a species
of purification ; if the advance is to purification indefinitely, then it may
be fulfilled by something less than washing the hands, by dipping the
finger, for instance, or by touching the body on any part with a drop of
water, or even without water, with blood, &c.
If any reader has a conscience at all, I ask nothing more than com-
mon sense in him, to perceive in this passage, that the persons referred
to usually washed their hands before eating; and that when they came
from the market they did something more than this. What that some-
thing more was, depends on the meaning of the word. " In the latter
case," says Mr. B., "Mr. Bloomfield remarks, it denotes a washing of the
body, but not an immersion." Now, as far as the passage itself is con-
cerned, it is fully admitted that it does not determine ; and the climax
would be the same to Mr. Bloomfield as to me. But I determine the
meaning of the word here, by its meaning as established by the use of
language : I never press an argument a hair's breadth farther than it
can go. I tell Mr. Bloomfield that the word never signifies to tvasli, as
I tell Mr. Beecher that it never signifies to purify. My authority is the
practice of the Greek language.
But why does Mr. Beecher appeal to Mr. Bloomfield ? Mr. Bloom-
field is as much opposed to him as he is to me. If the word here
signifies to wash the body, then it does not here signify to purify in
general. Mr. B.'s artifice is just that of the Socinians, when they ex-
plain the words " Before Abraham was, I am," in the sense of the Arians.
It is a dishonest and uncandid way of escaping. He does what he is
able to make it purify ; but as he cannot make it purify, even to his own
satisfaction, he will give it over to Mr. Bloomfield for washing the body
without immersion. This is not my way of handling the word of God.
Purification, then, cannot be the meaning of the word here, because it
is not suitable to the phraseology in which it is employed. But let it be
observed that this is more than I am bound to show. Were it suitable
to the context, I would equally reject it. I dismiss it on the grotind of
want of a title from the use of the language. I am not here grounding
a proof, but obviating an objection. It is quite sufficient that I can
show that the meaning which I assign to the word is suitable to the
passage : I am not bound to show that either wash or purify is unsuit-
able. The title of my client to the whole estate is already in evidence :
my opponents must show that some part of it has been alienated. This
passage will not prove such alienation.
Mr. B.'s second proof is, " Nothing in the context demands the sense
immerse, and powerful reasons forbid it. All must confess that purifi-
cation is the only idea involved in the subject of thought. Now it is no
57
450 FIRST REPLY TO PRESIDENT BEECHER.
more likely that a want of immersion offended the Pharisee, Luke xi. 38,
in the case of Christ, than it is that this was the ground of offence in
the case of the disciples, Mark vii. It does not appear that Christ had
been to the market ; nor is it likely at all that an immersion was ex-
pected, as a matter of course, before every meal, even on coming from
a crowd. The offence in the case of the disciples was, that they had
not washed their hands. An immersion was not expected of them,
though they had been in crowds. Why should it be of Christ?" It is
not necessary that the context should demand the true meaning of a
word ; it is enough that the context does not forbid it. The usage of
the language demands this meaning without any additional demand from
the context. The context, however, forbids purification, though this is
not necessary to me. The reasons alleged, as forbidding it to signify
immersion, have no force. Might not the Pharisees expect more sanctity
in the Messiah than in his disciples, or than even they themselves pro-
fessed ? But I have nothing to do with conjectures. Whatever might
be their reasons, they did expect that Christ would have immersed
before eating. To deny this is to give the lie to the inspired narrator.
The word used by the Holy Spirit signifies immersion, and immersion
only. A thousand reasons might influence the Pharisees in the expecta-
tion referred to, which may not be at all known to us. To know their
reasons is not at all necessary to the knowing of the meaning of the
word. Mr. B. rests this argument on a false principle of interpretation,
namely, that to know that a word is used in its established meaning, it
is necessary to know that there are sufficient reasons to warrant its truth
in such an application. This we are to take on the authority of the
narrator. His meaning we are to know from his words, and his veracity
we must rest on his character.
" Rosenmiiller, on this passage," says Mr. B., " well remarks, that the
existence of any such custom of regular immersion before all meals,
cannot be proved." This is another false first principle. What makes
it necessary that a practice should be proved by foreign evidence, before
the testimony of the Holy Spirit is received in its proper meaning ? Is
every thing recorded in Scripture to be denied, except it is proved by
history ? Am I to suspend my faith in the resurrection of Christ, till
I find it proved by uninspired records. This is a Neological canon,
well worthy of its author. It tends to sap the very foundations of
Christianity. Is not the testimony of the Spirit of God sufficient to
prove this fact? And what word could he have used more decisively
to assert immersion? The custom referred to as regards immersion
after market, rests on the evidence of inspired history. Is not this as
valid as the testimony of uninspired historians ?
" But above all," says Mr. B., " the immersion of the couches on
which they reclined at meals is out of the question." I most freely
admit that the word ought to be translated couches, and not tables. It
designates not only the couches on which they reclined at table, but even
the beds on which they reposed at night. It applies also to the litters
on which persons of distinction were carried on the shoulders of men.
I will never hesitate to recognise anything in evidence, whatever bearing
FIRST REPLY TO PRESIDENT BEECHER. 451
it may have on my views. " Mr. Carson," says my antagonist, " seems
to feel this point keenly, and yet manfully maintains his ground." Mr.
Carson does indeed feel with regard to this objection something that he
does not wish to express. But he ean assure President Beecher that he
never felt it as a difficulty : in the strongest light in which it can be
viewed, it is futile. There is no furniture in a house that could not be
immersed. I have said that the couches might have been made to be
taken to pieces, in order to their more convenient immersion ; and were
this necessary, it is a valid solution. The supposition is perfectly allow-
able. The couch on which rested the urn containing the ashes of Cyrus,
is said by Arrian, p. 144, to have had feet of solid gold ; and those on
either side of the throne of Alexander, for his friends to sit on, had feet
of silver, p. 165. Now what could be more easy than to have the feet
of the couch, of whatever materials composed, to be taken out at pleasure
for the purpose of immersion 1 The immersion of the couches would be
a thing of little trouble. But I care not that they were baptized all of a
piece : the thing could be very easily accomplished. Ingenuity is very
idly expended in making will-worship easy to superstition. The couches
were immersed, because the word which is employed to express the
operation has this signification, and no other.
Mr. B., throughout his whole work, mistakes my doctrine as to a pos-
sible sense of a word ; and labours under a fundamental error as to the
difference of founding an argument on any passage, and answering an
objection from it. When we found an argument on any passage, we
must prove that the passage has our meaning, and no other : for if this
is not proved, the argument can have no weight. But when we answer
an objection from any passage, it is sufficient that a particular word may
have the sense for which we contend ; because, if it may have such a
sense, the objection which supposes that it has not this sense, but another
sense, is unfounded. It is a contradiction to say that a word may have
such a sense in such a place, yet that it cannot have this sense. If, then,
the answer to the objection is possible, it is valid. Were not this so,
Christianity itself could not withstand the attacks of the infidel. Many
objections must be answered by the authority of merely possible solu-
tions. This is what I mean by a possible sense. I never extend this to
cases in which I found an argument : I confine it resolutely to cases in
which I answer objections. With respect to the passage now under dis-
cussion, Mr. B. is bound to proof; because on this he founds proof that
the word in question signifies to purify. I stand only on the defence ;
for I do not allege the passage as proof, but repel the objection which
pretends that the passage is irreconcilable with immersion. In this point
my antagonist proves himself ignorant of one of the fundamental laws
of controversy. He demands proof from me, when he himself is bound
to prove. He asks, " What has Mr. Carson proved ? Why, truly, that
in other instances baptizo means immerse. But does this prove that it
means it here'?" Could any man who understands the seif-evident laws
of controversy, look for proof on my part from this passage 1 Is it not
enough for me to show that there is nothing to prevent the word from
having its established meaning in this passage ? If this is possible, his
452 FIRST REPLY TO PRESIDENT BEECHER.
objection is removed. My antagonist is bound from this passage to show
that the word signifies to purify. How can he do this, if he has not
proved the word to have that signification in any other place; and if
even in this it may have its usual meaning? If, as he admits, I have
found that baptizo in other instances signifies to immerse, there is a cer-
tainty that it has this meaning here, except it is proved that it has
another signification somewhere else. If another signification is found,
I will not insist that immersion must of course be the signification here.
In such a case as this, the meaning must be settled by additional evi-
dence. When a word has two or more meanings, actually in proof,
which of them may in any passage be the true meaning, is a question ;
but if no secondary meaning is in proof, there can be no question on the
subject. Now there is not in all Greek literature a single instance, ever
alleged, in which this word must have a secondary meaning.
Mr. B. admits that I have proved that the word signifies immersion
in other places; but asks, "Does this prove that it means so here?" I
answer most decidedly that it does prove this, if the word is not proved
to have another meaning. If but one instance prove a word to have a
certain meaning, it is proof that every other instance has the same
meaning, except a secondary meaning is proved. If a secondary mean-
ing is proved, then the claimants must rest their suit on their respective
peculiar resources.
" The probability," says Mr. B., " is all the other way." Here there
is a want of discrimination and a confounding of things that differ. I
am not speaking of what is possible, probable, or certain, independently
of the testimony ; I am speaking of the testimony of the word known
by its use ; I am saying that a word in a certain place must have the
meaning which it is found to have in other places, when no secondary
meaning has ever been proved. Mr. B. alleges not the testimony of the
word, but imposes a testimony on the word. He forces it to take a
meaning which use has never given it, on the authority of what he
thinks probable, utterly independent of the authority of the word. He
tampers with the witness, and tells him what he must say. I allow
witness to tell his own story, and believe him implicitly on his own
authority, without regard to what I might think independently probable.
Mr. B.'s conduct is just the same with that of a jury who, having heard
the testimony of a number of competent eye-witnesses, with regard to the
way in which a man was killed, decide in opposition to their evidence,
on the authority of the conjectures of a surgeon. This word declares
that couches were purified by immersion. Mr. B., on the authority of
what he thinks probable, declares that it was not by immersion. He
dictates to the word what it must say, instead of receiving its testimony.
On the contrary, my decision is, that the way in which the couches
were purified, is to be known from the testimony of the word, and not
from what, independently of that testimony, is probable; and that
from this testimony they were immersed, because the word has no other
meaning.
" Hence," says Mr. B., " the demand to prove an impossibility of
immersion is altogether unreasonable." If a secondary meaning had
FIRST REPLY TO PRESIDENT BEECHER. 453
been proved from use, then, in any instance to demand an impossibility
of the primary meaning, before the secondary is admitted, would be un-
reasonable. But is it unreasonable that a word should be understood
in this passage as it is proved to signify in other passages, when no
secondary signification has ever been proved ? Instead of being unrea-
sonable, the demand is founded on self-evident truth. Why should the
word have a meaning here, which it is not proved to have in use, when
its own established meaning will serve ? How can a meaning which is
not known to exist, dispute with the only established meaning ? Views
of probability, independently of the testimony of the word, are not a
competent witness ; for they are often mistaken. What we might, pre-
viously to the hearing of evidence, judge probable, might, on the hear-
ing of evidence, be proved most satisfactorily to be false. The meaning
of this word must be known from its use — not from views of probability
independently of this use. When we hear that a certain person has
killed another, we may think the thing very improbable ; but shall we
on that ground assert that kill does not signify to take away life ? In
fact, to allege that the couches were not immersed, is not to decide on
the authority of the word used, but in opposition to this authority ; to
give the lie to the Holy Spirit. Inspiration employs a word to designate
the purification of the couches, which never signifies anything but im-
merse. If they were not immersed, the historian is a false witness. This
way of conferring meanings on words is grounded on infidelity. It dic-
tates to inspiration instead of interpreting its language. It would be
improper in ascertaining the meaning of words even in a profane histo-
rian. Are we to deny the meaning of words established by use, as often
as, independently of the testimony of the words, we may think a thing
improbable 1 This would destroy the faith of history : it would destroy
every doctrine of Scripture. This is a usual way with some in inter-
preting the Bible ; but is not the way that any interpret the language of
the profane historian. When the profane historian narrates what is
thought improbable, his veracity is questioned, but his words are not
tampered with. When the Holy Spirit employs words whose meanings
are not relished, critics do not say that he lies, but they say what is equal
to this, that his words mean what they cannot mean. If a word may
have in any instance its established meaning, when it cannot be proved
in any instance to have another meaning, it cannot be probable that it
has in that instance a meaning which it cannot be proved to have any-
where else. Surely this is self-evident.
"And it is," continues my antagonist, " against his own practice in
other cases. Does he not admit that bapto means to dye, or colour,
when it is applied to the beard and hair?" Here I am caught at last:
surely my feet are entangled in my own net. But let the reader see with
what ease I can extricate myself. The assertion of my antagonist arises
from his want of discrimination. I admit that bapto has a secondary sig-
nification, because such secondary signification is in proof, and instances
may be alleged in which its primary meaning is utterly impossible.
When applied, for instance, to the lake, the immersion of a lake in the
blood of a frog, is beyond the bounds of possibility. Show me anything
454 FIRST REPLY TO PRESIDENT BEECHER.
like this with respect to baptizo, and I will grant a secondary meaning ;
and as soon as a secondary meaning is ascertained on sufficient grounds,
I do not demand in every instance a proof of impossibility of primary
meaning before the secondary is alleged. The competition between the
rival meanings must then be determined on other grounds. This law i
apply, not to baptizo only, but to every word of every language. The
immersion of the couches, in no light in which it can be viewed, has
the smallest difficulty. From an excess of good nature I made faith
easy to the weak, by fixing the couches so as readily to be taken to
pieces ; but if obstinacy will not avail itself of this help, I will force it
to carry the couches to water wherever it may be found.
" The fact is," says Mr. B., " that the whole reasoning against the
sense claimed for baptizo in these passages, rests on false principles."
False principles ! What now are our false principles ? Is it a false prin-
ciple to rest on the ascertained meaning of a word, and not on probabili-
ties independently of the word ? Is it a false principle to refuse a word
a meaning in a disputed passage,, till it proves itself to have such mean-
ing in an undisputed passage ?
" It assumes," says my antagonist, " a violent improbability of the
meaning in question, and resorts to all manner of shifts to prove the pos-
sibility of immersion, as though that were all that the case required."
What shall I say of this? Is it calumny, or is it want of perspicacity?
Assume! I assume nothing, Mr. President Beecher, but self-evident truth.
My reasoning does not at all rest on assumptions. The meaning which
you assign to the word, I reject, because it wants evidence, not on any
assumption of its violent improbability. All manner of shifts ! I repel
the charge with indignation. I never used a shift in all the controversy
I ever wrote. Does it require a shift to prove that in all the cases
referred to, immersion was possible? Will any man of common sense
question the possibility ? If the possibility is unquestionable, why shall
I be supposed to employ all manner of shifts to prove it ?
But my opponent asserts also that I consider that the possibility of
immersion in the cases referred to, is all that is required to prove it. Is
this a shift? It is worse than a shift: it is not a fact. The proof that
immersion was used in the cases referred to, is that the word has this
meaning, and no other. The possibility of immersion only removes
objection. But for argument's sake, I will for a moment admit that im-
mersion was in these cases impossible : even then I will deny the title of
purification. Washing is a meaning which would come previously to
purifying. These passages, then, cannot in any view, ground the title
of purification.
Section VIII. — His next argument, Mr. Beecher grounds on a pas-
sage in Ecclesiasticus. " In the case," says he, " so often quoted from
Sirach xxxiv. 25, baptizo requires the sense katharizo. The passage is
this : Haptizomcnos apo nekrou Jcai palin aptomenos autou ti ophelese to
loutro autou. • He that is cleansed from a dead body, and again touches
it, of what profit to him is his cleansing?' " No such thing is required
But let us hear his proof.
" 1. The sense, katharizo, purify," says he, "suits the preposition
FIRST REPLY TO PRESIDENT BEECHER. 455
apo ; — immerse does not." The preposition, I assert, equally suits im-
mersion. Immersed from a dead body, is an elliptical expression, for
immersed to purify from the pollution contracted by the touch of a dead
body. And on this principle it is translated into English, in the com-
mon version, though the translators were not immersers. " He that
washeth himself after the touching of a dead body, if he touch it again,
what availeth his washing ?" But it is strange beyond measure that
President Beecher did not perceive that even if the word purify itself
had been here used, there would have been a similar ellipsis. To purify
from a dead body, is to purify from the pollution contracted by touching
a dead body. This is school-boy criticism, Mr. President.
His second observation on this example is : " No immersion, in the
case of touching a dead body, was enjoined, but simply a washing of the
body." It is not necessary that an immersion should be enjoined : it is
quite sufficient that the injunction of washing the body was usually per-
formed by immersion. The writer is alluding to practice, and is not
relating the words of the injunction.
Mr. B.'s third observation on this passage is, that " the rite of purifi-
cation from a dead body was complex, and no import of the word baptizo,
but the one claimed, is adapted to include the whole." The writer is
not describing the whole process of the rite of purification according to
the law of Moses. Why, then, should the word include the whole?
He is referring to a part of that rite merely as an illustration of another
subject. Priests were anointed to their office, but there were other
things included in the rite of inauguration, besides anointing. Might it
not be said, " If a priest is anointed, and afterwards render himself unfit
for his office, of what avail is his anointing?" The washing completed
the process of purification. Another touch of a dead body defiled again,
and rendered the washing, consequently the whole process, useless.
But in the word lontron there is the most decisive evidence that the
whole process of purification is not included in baptizo. The word
loutron here refers to the thing done to the person by his baptism. But
loutron cannot refer to purification in general, but only to washing. It
cannot include the sprinkling of the water of separation. This is puri-
fication, but not washing.
On this view, Mr. B. asks : " How then is it consistent to apply it to
the blood of Christ, which is spoken of as the blood of sprinkling?"
This to Mr. B. appears an unanswerable question : to me it has not the
smallest difficulty. We are said to be icashcd in the blood of Christ,
and we are said to be sprinkled with the blood of Christ. But the
washing and the sprinkling- are never confounded; we are not said to
be washed by being sprinkled, nor is sprinkling called washing. These
two forms of speech refer to the application of the blood of Christ under
figures entirely different. When Christ's blood is said to be sprinkled
on us, there is an allusion to the sprinkling of the blood under the
law ; when we are said to be washed in the blood of Christ, there is an
allusion to the washing under the law. Does not Mr. B. know what
a difference there is between a mixture of metaphors, and a succession
of distinct metaphors? Careless readers will imagine that there is
456 FIRST REPLY TO PRESIDENT BEECHER.
wonderful acuteness in Mr. B.'s observations. But the eye of the philo-
sopher will perceive that they are subtle without discrimination. A
little more perspicacity would have saved him from undertaking the
impracticable task of proving baptism to mean purification.
But were we to grant that the word here signifies purification, this
would not be proof that it has this signification in the rite of Christian
baptism. It would give ground to send the case to the jury ; but would
not decide the controversy. Still we would most satisfactorily prove
that baptism must be by immersion.
" The case of Judith, also," Mr. B. alleges, " sustains the same view."
But what appearance of difficulty does this occurrence of the word pre-
sent ? Is it a thing impossible, or even difficult, to be immersed near
a fountain ? Might she not have had attendants with her to provide
her with a bath at the fountain, had this been necessary ? From the
civilities and attentions of the governor, could she be supposed to want
anything that would not be most cheerfully supplied? Was it not usual
to have stone troughs at fountains, for the purpose of watering cattle?
" Haynes informs us," says Mr. Whitecross, in his Anecdotes Illustra-
tive of Scripture, " that having arrived at Nazareth, at the end of De-
cember, about five in the evening, upon entering the town, he and his
party saw two women filling their pitchers with water at a fountain he
had described, and about twelve others waiting for the same purpose,
whom they desired to pour some into a trough which stood by, that
their horses might drink ; they had no sooner made the request than the
women complied, and filled the trough, and the others waited with the
greatest patience." p. 83. Yes, but Mr. B. will say, Mr. Carson has
not proved that there was such a trough at this fountain. Mr. Carson
will reply, This is not necessary, Mr. President ; it is sufficient for my
purpose, if it may have been so. I am answering an objection, and if
the thing might be as I suppose, the objection is invalid.
But what should prevent her from bathing in the fountain, even if we
were assured that there was no other way of bathing? This is quite
usual to superstition. Charlotte Elizabeth, speaking of a holy well at
the top of Slieve Donard, a lofty mountain in Ireland, says, " Many a
diseased creature had dragged his feeble, perhaps crippled limbs and
exhausted frame, to the top of Slieve Donard, to plunge them in the so-
called holy well, hoping to find a healing power in its spring :" shall less
be expected from Jewish superstition? In fact, the English version,
which was not made by immersers, actually translates the passage,
" and washed herself in a fountain of water by the camp." Judith xii. 7.
It is true that the exact rendering is, immersed herself at a fountain, not
in a fountain. The immersion is proved not by the preposition, but by
the verb ; and though at a fountain does not signify in a fountain, yet
it is consistent with it. A person may be said to be immersed at a
fountain, when he is immersed in it. A person coming from Palestine
may say, I was baptized at the Jordan, when he was immersed in it.
I have said all this, however, only to put obstinacy to the blush, and
overwhelm it with confusion. Not a word of it is essentially necessary.
Had Judith been most rigorously treated, and confined to her tent, when
FIRST REPLY TO PRESIDENT fcEECHER. 457
she is said to be baptized for purification, I will make the word find her
water. Can anything be more unreasonable than for persons at the end
of thousands of years, to allege difficulties as in certain cases insupera-
ble ? Could not innumerable circumstances render a thing practicable,
which to us are now unknown ?
"We are told," says Mr. B., "of her courage, and faith, and of pos-
sible bathing places near the spring, and all for what? To avoid so
obvious a conclusion as that the writer merely means to say, that she
purified or washed herself, without reference to the mode." To avoid
such a conclusion, it is not necessary to allege any of the things men-
tioned. The immersion would be secured by the word, though he could
see no way of its accomplishment. It is enough that nothing is seen to
render it impossible. When we take the trouble of showing how the
immersion might be accomplished, it is a work of supererogation. How
is the conclusion obvious that the historian means only that she purified
or washed herself, without reference to mode, when the word that he
employs designates mode in the most decisive manner ? What is the
ground of the supposed obvious conclusion ? Is it that it would have
been sufficient to tell us that she washed or purified herself, without
telling us the mode ? This is no ground for such a conclusion ; this
does not imply that she did not purify in the mode of immersion, or that
the historian should not mention the mode employed. But can anything
be sufficient ground for a conclusion as to this point, but the import of
the word itself? How do we conclude that she purified herself at all ?
Is it not from the word used by the historian ? Ought we not, then, to
ground our conclusion, as to the mode of that purification, on the same
word, and not on independent probability ? We have no testimony on
the subject, but that contained in the word baptizo, and that testimony
asserts immersion. How can it be concluded that the historian speaks
of purification without expressing mode, when he employs the word that
most definitely expresses mode?
"What reason is there," says Mr. B., "for all this?" Astonishing
demand ! What reason is there for giving a word the only meaning it is
known to possess ! When a person says, 1 dipped my self in the river, shall
we say, " what reason is there to suppose that the word dip here signifies
to immerse ? Is it not here intended to tell us that he bathed himself?
What reason, then, is there to suppose that dip does not signify to bathe,
without reference to mode?" Our reason for believing that Judith was
immersed is, that the historian tells us that she was immersed. Is not
this a sufficient reason?
" Is not the sense purify," continues Mr. B., " a priori probable ?"
Whether in giving an account of the performance of a rite of purifica-
tion, a writer will mention the process in the rite to be performed with-
out specification, cannot be previously known : it must be learned from
the words of the narrative. That Mr. President Beecher will be im-
mersed in one of the great American rivers, is now very improbable ;
but should I ever read that, in obedience to Christ, he was immersed,
I certainly will not attempt to discredit the account by alleging that
immerse does not here signify to dip.
5S
458 FIRST REPLY TO PRESIDENT BEECHER.
" Does it not," continues Mr. B., " fulfil all the exigencies of the case ?"
This is no criterion. A word might fulfil all the exigencies of the case,
and yet another word, either more general or more specific, might be
used. When a person says, I dipped myself in the river, either washed
or bathed would fulfil all the exigencies of the case. Does this prove
that dip signifies to ivash or bathe without referring to mode?
"Was it of any importance," says Mr. B., "to specify the mode?" If
it is truth, the importance is not to be weighed. My last reply will serve
equally here. But is it a thing of no importance to specify the mode in
which a rite is performed ?
" Do the circumstances of the case," continues my opponent, " call
for immersion?" The word calls for immersion; it is enough that no
circumstances forbid it. If this was the usual mode of performing the
rite of washing in purification, which is admitted, why is it not demand-
ed? Such objections are unworthy of an answer. Suppose it is said
that an army on its march forded a river near such a place. Sup-
pose again that I know that in that neighbourhood there is a bridge
over the river ; is it not probable that, if there is a bridge, the army
will pass by the bridge? Am I then to say, that ford signifies to pass
a river by a bridge 1 Whitecross relates the following anecdote : " Very
near Columbo is a school built in a beautiful and romantic situation, on
the high bank of a noble river, across which a bridge of boats had
recently been thrown for the convenience of the public. A number of
fine little boys residing on the side of the river, opposite the school, were
exceedingly anxious to enjoy the benefits of the instruction which it
afforded, but were utterly unable, from their poverty, to pay the toll for
passing this bridge four times every day, to and from school. In remov-
ing this serious difficulty, the little fellows showed at once their eager-
ness to obtain instruction, and their native ingenuity. Wearing only
a light cloth around them, according to the custom of the country,
they were accustomed to assemble on the bank in the morning, and
the larger boys binding up the books of the smaller ones, which they
had home with them to learn their tasks, to tie them on the back
of their heads, and swim over, the little ones following them ; and this
inconvenience they constantly encountered, rather than be absent from
school."
Now, if instead of this particular narrative, which explains every cir-
cumstance, it had been recorded only that the boys passed the river
by swimming, while we knew that a bridge of boats was near, what
would be the sense in which, according to Mr. B.'s philology, a foreigner
should understand the language? "Swim," says the writer, "must un-
doubtedly be here taken to signify to walk over a bridge of boats. It
is true, in many books in the English language, the word swim has
another meaning, but there is the highest probability that it has not
this signification here. Is it to be believed that the boys swam, in
the primary sense of the word, across a great river, when there was a
bridge at the place? Incredible, utterly incredible! My opponents,
it is true, may plead the authority of classical English ; but I rely
on Columbine English. The word swim, then, must here have the
FIRST REPLY TO PRESIDENT BEECHER. 459
secondary signification for which I contend." Every child who speaks
English will laugh the critic to scorn ; but to his own countrymen, as
little acquainted with the English language as himself, he would appear
to be w very profound philologist. I maintain that this is exactly Mr.
B.'s criticism, and that it can satisfy nothing but ignorance.
Is it not evident, on the face of the document, that Judith went out
from the camp to the fountain at Bethulia for the purpose of bathing, or
washing her whole person 1 This the law of purification required, and
no other reason made it necessary for her to go to the fountain. Even
then, supposing that it were allowed that the word signifies to wash
without reference to mode, this gives no countenance to Mr. B.'s opinion
that the word signifies to purify. To wash and to purify are not
identical. On this supposition, the passage would favour those who
think that the word signifies to wash — not those who think that it
signifies to purify.
Again, if the washing of the person in any manner was the way in
which the law was fulfilled, why did she go to the fountain '! Why did
she leave the tent ? Could not a small basin of water have served the
purpose of successive washing?
Again, even had it been said that she washed her person at the foun-
tain, was not immersion likely to be the mode ? Is it not the usual and
the most convenient way of washing her person ? Why then shall it be
supposed that it was not the mode employed here, even though the word
of mode had not been used 1 But especially when the word of mode is
used, why should supposed difficulties make it incredible ? The alleged
difficulties, however, are no difficulties. Mr. B. cannot find a tree while
he is in the forest.
But even were it admitted that the word signifies purify in this place,
this would not prove that it has this signification in the ordinance of
baptism ; we could still prove immersion to be the mode of the Chris-
tian rite. Mr. B. fails in every thing which he attempts to prove ; yet
were he successful, it would not prove his position.
Throughout his whole work, my antagonist labours under an essential
error. He reasons on the supposition that every instance of the occur-
rence of the word must be treated independently of its established
meaning, and its meaning assigned according to views of probability,
without reference to testimony. He understands not the difference
between answering an objection and founding an argument ; and calls
upon me for proof, when he himself is bound to prove. In answering
objections, a merely possible supposition is as good as demonstration : in
proof, probability, even the highest probability, avails nothing against
testimony. If Judith is said to have been baptized, she must have been
immersed, though a thousand difficulties may occur in providing the
water. My opponents are more unreasonable with me than the Israelites
were with Moses : they murmured when they had no water. Must I
bring water out of the rock, when there is enough in the fountain?
Such a mode of disproving the established meaning of a word, and of
giving a new and unauthorised meaning, I cannot dignify with any other
designation than that of perverse cavilling.
460 FIRST REPLY TO PRESIDENT BEECHER.
Mr. B. alleges as another argument, that " no contrary probability,
or usage, can be established from the writers of the New Testament
age, or of the preceding age, who used the Alexandrian Greek." With
probability we have nothing to do in this question ; we are inquiring
about a matter of fact, namely, whether a certain word had a secondary
meaning. We admit proof from writers of all classes to the time of
Christ. Mr. B. tells us that to refute a secondary meaning, it is of no
use to appeal to the earliest writers. This also we admit. If in all the
history of the word, till its appropriation to the ordinance of Christ, he
brings one instance in which it must have a secondary meaning, we
admit that a secondary meaning is fully proved. An example from
Alexandrian Greek would prove the fact, though it should not be owned
by any writer of antiquity. Is not this admission sufficiently liberal ?
Candour requires no less : it cannot require more. I have no object
but truth ; and I am so strong in truth, that I fearlessly grant every
thing that candour can demand.
But what does the writer mean when he asserts that no contrary
usage can be established from the writers of the New Testament age, or
of the age preceding ? Does he mean that during this time the word is
not used in its primary sense ? If he does, the assertion is palpably
false. Does he mean that during the specified time, there are examples
of this secondary meaning ? Is not this the very point in dispute ? To
assume it, is to assume the question at issue. There is not one instance
to prove this.
Here, however, Mr. B. labours under his usual mistake — he puts
proof on his opponent, when it lies upon himself. Why should we
prove a contrary usage in the times of the New Testament, or the pre-
ceding age? Does not proof lie upon him? If I prove that in its early
history a word has a certain meaning, it must in every age be supposed
to have the same meaning, till a contrary usage is proved. If the
possessor of an estate proves that he has hitherto possessed it by a good
title, his possession cannot be disturbed till alienation is proved. It is
possible that he may have sold it, but this is to be proved, not taken for
granted.
" I do not deny," says my antagonist, " that these writers do also use
the word baptizo in other circumstances, and in a secular sense, to
denote immersion, sinking, overwhelming, or oppression. But this only
proves that the two usages did co-exist ; just as Mr. Carson proves that
the two usages of bapto did co-exist in Hippocrates, and that the exist-
ence of the one did not disprove the existence of the other."
But is there not a great difference between Mr. Carson's proving,
and Mr. Beecher's asserting, and supposing, and alleging probabilities,
independently of the word? All my opponents endeavour to take
advantage of my candour in proving the secondary meaning of bapto,
taking it for granted that this equally applies to baptizo. Let baptizo
show as good evidence of a secondary meaning, as I have shown on the
part of bapto, and I will without controversy admit the fact. But when
Mr. B. has done this, he has not succeeded ; even then I am perfectly
able to prove that the word applies to the ordinance of baptism in
FIRST REPLY TO PRESIDENT BEECHER. 461
its primary meaning. A primary and a secondary meaning may co-exist,
while each of them must be capable of being definitely ascertained. I
deny a secondary meaning, not because it would disprove immersion in
the ordinance of baptism, but because it wants the countenance of use.
I give my opponents the whole range of Greek literature till the institu-
tion of the ordinance of baptism. I have never met an example which
I cannot reduce to the one meaning.
Section IX. — Mr. B.'s explanation of Acts xxii. 16, is not a little
singular. On the strength of this single example, I would undertake to
refute his meaning of the word in dispute. Let us hear his explanation
of it. " Here," says he, " we have faith in Christ, the washing away or
pardon of sins, and a purification intended to symbolise it. Baptisai,
purify thyself, or be purified bodily, — apolousai tas amartias, wash away
thy sins, as to the mind, by calling on the name of the Lord." On this
I remark, 1. This makes the pardon of sins to be conferred at the time
of baptism. It is the very error which he reprobates, p. 42. If the dis-
tinction is, that purification is emblematic, and pardon of sins real, then
the pardon of sins takes place in baptism. In fact, this is what he ex-
pressly says. He makes purify refer to the body, and wash away thy
sins refer to the mind. Could Mr. B. more clearly avow the doctrine
which he stigmatises?
2. This makes the external rite of baptism purify the body from sin,
while the mind is purified not by baptism, but by calling on the name
of the Lord. If the body is not purified from sin by the rite, it is not,
according to Mr. B., purified at all. It is the mind only, as distinguished
from the body, that is purified by calling on the name of the Lord.
3. This represents the mind as purified at the time of baptism, by
calling on the name of the Lord. Is it. not by faith in the blood of
Christ, that both soul and body are purified ? And does not this take
place at the moment when the sinner believes in Christ.
4. It is not said that he was to wash away his sins by calling on the
name of the Lord, but that he was to be baptized, having called on the
name of the Lord.
5. Purify and wash are not indeed synonymous, but they are too
nearly related to be both applied together with reference to the same
thing. The one is the genus, and the other is a species under it. Be
purified, and wash away thy sins, would be intolerable English. Is not
washing contained in purifying ? What need is there for both the genus
and the species ?
6. Mr. B. has felt this consequence ; and to avoid it, he has invented
a distinction, not suggested by the words, but inconsistent both with
truth and with the passage.
7. The emblem in baptism refers to the soul as well as to the body,
though the body only is washed ; and the thing signified by the emblem
refers to the body as well as to the soul. The body is washed from sin
as well as the mind. The distinction, then, is not between the baptism
of the body and the washing of the soul.
8. "Be baptized," evidently refers to the rite as designated from its
462 FIRST REPLY TO PRESIDENT BEECHER.
mode; and "wash away thy sins," to its emblematical meaning. Bap-
tism is the name of the rite ; the loashing away of sins is its emblem-
atical import. Sins are washed away by the blood of Christ, the moment
a person believes on him. This is exhibited in emblem immediately
after believing the truth, by being immersed in water. Sins are emblem-
atically washed away in baptism, just as ceremonial sins were washed
away by ceremonial purification. In like manner the Lord's supper re-
presents that which has already taken place, and not that which is done
during the ordinance. The blood was previously shed, the atonement
was made, and the sins of the worthy partakers were remitted. But in
the ordinance of the supper all this is exhibited in emblem.
9. This phraseology shows that baptism is a washing or bathing : then
it cannot be a purification by sprinkling a few drops of water. This is
no washing ; the whole person was bathed.
10. Yet though there is a washing in baptism, the word baptism can-
not signify washing, for this would be to say, " Be washed, and wash
away thy sins." Two words with exactly the same meaning could not
be thus conjoined. No criticism will ever be able to reconcile this pas-
sage with either icashing or purifying as the meaning of the word bap-
tism. It is suitable only to its modal meaning, immersion.
Mr. B. thinks that 1 Pet. iii. 21, proves his view. The apostle, he
tells us, " seems to think that, if he left the word baptisma unguarded,
he might be taken to mean the external purification of the body." Is
not this reason of caution as applicable to immersion as to purification ?
Whatever might have been the name or mode of the ordinance, it is an
ordinance of emblematic purification, and as such was liable to perversion.
Have not Baptists as much need to caution ignorance against supposing
that the external rite is salvation, as those who make the word signify
purification ? The immersion is an emblematical washing, and it is
necessary to guard against the universal proneness to superstition, in
substituting rites for the things signified by them.
Mr. B. seems to think that the word baptism in the passage does not
at all refer to the Christian rite, but to purification or atonement by the
blood of Christ. This conceit is unworthy of notice. 1. Immerse is
the meaning of the word, whatever the immersion may represent. 2. It
is the appropriated name of the ordinance, and to the ordinance it must
refer here, whatever the word may signify. 3. That it refers to the ordi-
nance of baptism is evident on the whole face of the document. No
man could deny this who had not a purpose to serve. 4. Mr. B. does
not, as he ought, show the consistency of the meaning alleged, with the
phraseology of the passage. 5. The ordinance of baptism, and the sal-
vation of Noah by water, have the most lively resemblance. Noah and
his family were saved by being buried in the water of the flood ; and
after the flood they emerged as rising from the grave. There is no cor-
respondence between purification and the water of the flood. 6. We are
saved by baptism, just as Paul washed away his sins by baptism — just
as the bread in the Lord's supper is Christ's body, and the wine his
blood — just as the rock was Christ — just as the joint participation in
eating the bread and drinking the wine in the supper, is the communion
FIRST REPLY TO PRESIDENT BEECHER. 463
of the body of Christ, and of the blood of Christ. There is no difficulty
in this phraseology to any who have not some heresy to support by per-
version.
The author refers next to the authority of Josephus. I have already
disposed of the testimony of Josephus, with regard to the baptism of
John : it is completely in accordance with our views of the mode of the
ordinance of Christ. " To denote baptism," says Mr. B., " he uses the
word baptesis, and to denote its import he states that they are to use it,
eph agneia tou somatos," &c. Josephus does not use baptesis to denote
the rite of baptism, but for the act of baptizing. To denote the rite, he
uses baptismos. The e baptesis is the immersing — baptismos is the rite
of immersion. And the words of Josephus, quoted by the author, are
the import of the rite as to its nature or object, not the import of its
name. This manifests a great want of discrimination in my opponent.
Except this were the import of the name of the rite, it cannot serve him.
The import of the rite, as given by Josephus, instead of serving my
opponent, refutes him. If the people came to John's baptism on account
of purification, then baptism is the name of the rite, and purification is
its object. They came to be immersed in order to be purified by that
immersion. Surely a very child will understand this.
" Now here I remark," says my antagonist, " that there was nothing
to cause Josephus or any other Jew to think of the mode, or to attach
any importance to it." What trifling is this! What necessity for
Josephus to think anything of the mode? Does this say that a certain
mode was not employed, and that Josephus did not mention the puri-
fication by the name of the mode employed? Does any one expect
Josephus to attach importance to the mode whatever it might be?
Does this imply that Jesus attached no importance to the mode? I
never met so great and so constant a want of discrimination. Suppose
an infidel to give an account of the performance of this rite by immer-
sion, would he not speak of it as an immersion ?
" No idea," continues the author, " of a fancied reference, in the rite,
to the death of Christ, could bias his mind to the sense immersion."
Was it necessary that Josephus should understand the reference of the
mode of this rite to the death of Christ, in order to his knowing it to be
an immersion ; and in order to his giving it the modal appropriated
name? I am not sure that John the Baptist understood this. Did
Josephus understand the emblem of the burial of Christ, that was con-
tained in the figure of Jonas in the belly of the whale ? Did all men
know what was the import of the rite of circumcision, who spoke of it
by its appropriated name ; and who knew what was performed in the
rite? How many people know that the Baptists immerse in the per-
formance of the ordinance of baptism, who do not know that in that
mode they have a reference to the death, burial, and resurrection of
Christ ? I am weary of replying to childish trifling.
" To him, it is plain," continues the author, " that it meant nothing
but purifying the body," &-c. It may be very true that the rite was
understood by Josephus to mean nothing but purifying the body, with-
out implying that its name signified purification. As usual the author
464 FIRST REPLY TO PRESIDENT BEECHER.
does not distinguish between the name of the rite and the object of the
rite. Though Josephus might see no emblem in the mode, does this
imply that immersion was not its mode ; that it had not its name from
the mode ; and that Josephus spoke not of it by its appropriated modal
name ? It is sickening to be obliged to notice such arguments.
" Now," says the writer, " although I would not rely on such places
for proof, against a strong contrary probability, yet when I find them
so perfectly coincident with all other facts ; when all shades of proba-
bility so perfectly harmonise and blend in a common result, I cannot
hesitate, for I see no good reason for doubt." Whatever may be sup-
posed the probability with regard to the mode in the facts referred to,
independently of testimony, the moment competent testimony gives its
evidence, it decides the matter. Instead of a probability, there is a
certainty that immersion was the mode, because the word used by the
historian signifies immersion, and has no other meaning. Is not the
meaning of a word testimony 1 The author here admits the possibility
of immersion in each of the cases referred to. What, then, should
prevent it, when it is testified by a word that has no other meaning?
This is testimony against previous improbability, which in all courts
is competent evidence. That cannot be a safe principle, which, it is
admitted, may possibly fail. Now the author himself here admits that
the principle on which he interprets this word, will not universally hold
good.
Mr. Beecher proceeds on an axiom that is false, fanatical, and sub-
versive of all revealed truth, namely, that meaning is to be assigned to
words in any document, not from the authority of the use of the lan-
guage, ascertained by acknowledged examples ; but from views of pro-
bability as to the thing related, independently of the testimony of the word.
He learns not facts from history ; but he dictates to history. The his-
torian he will not allow to use his words in the sense acknowledged by
the language, because that sense is, he thinks, unsupported by the pre-
vious probability of the fact.
If a word is found to have two meanings, it is lawful in every instance
of its occurrence, to bring their respective claims to the test. But if a
secondary meaning is not in proof, previous probability as to the fact has
nothing to do ; because a thing previously improbable may be received
as truth, with perfect confidence, on sufficient testimony. To allege
probability against the ascertained meaning of a word, is to deny testi-
mony as a source of evidence ; for the meaning of testimony must be
known from the words used. This is a Neological canon, and is the
very principle on which Neologists interpret the Bible. It is very im-
probable, they say, that such a thing was the case, therefore the words
of the historian do not mean this. It is very improbable, some say, that
Samson killed so many people with a jaw-bone of an ass ; therefore the
word does not here signify the jaw-bone of an ass, but the tooth oj a
rock, which being loosely attached, was pulled down on his enemies by
the hero. This canon would not leave a miracle in the Bible, nor a
doctrine in revelation.
On the same principle, should a foreigner read in English, that a
FIRST REPLY TO PRESIDENT BEECHER. 465
prisoner was immersed in jail, on the belief of the Gospel, he might say,
" as it is improbable that there was water for the dipping of his person,
it is to be concluded that immerse here signifies to purify without refer-
ence to mode." Yet immerse does not more decidedly mean to dip, than
does baptizo ; and there is not in all Mr. B.'s examples, a higher proba-
bility than this. Such previous probabilities give place to testimony, as
darkness gives place to light.
Mr. B. alleges that " it is not a solitary fact on which the argument
rests." This can mean no more, as to the examples alleged, than that
there are several instances of improbability, considered previously to
testimony. But this is not a combination of evidence. Each of the
cases considered separately is nothing; all taken together, then, must be
nothing : it is the addition or multiplication of ciphers. The Columbine
bridge will solve a thousand such difficulties.
There is no word, whose meaning is not liable to the like objections,
as are here alleged with respect to the word in dispute. What word is
there, which in the whole history of its use, does not sometimes occur
in circumstances, in which the thing which it attests is previously as
improbable as immersion in the cases referred to by Mr. B. 1 Yet this
never shakes our confidence as to the meaning of any word, when it
testifies. There are some islands in which it is very improbable that
horses would be found ; yet if a traveller tells us that he saw a horse, we
shall believe either that he really saw a horse, or that he deceives us.
We never think of solving the difficulty, by alleging that horse here sig-
nifies a leopard.
With respect to the relation between the name of this ordinance and
purification, the reason is quite obvious. That a coincidence and har-
mony should exist between a word which is the appropriated name of
an ordinance, and the thing emblematically meant by the ordinance, is
a thing that can strike no philologist with surprise. This is altogether
necessary, instead of being a thing unexpected. There cannot be an
instance of a similar connexion without a similar result. If baptisma is
the name of the ordinance, whatever may be supposed its meaning ;
and if purification is the emblem of the ordinance, there must be such
a coincidence. Any man of ordinary understanding will perceive the
ground of the connexion, without any recourse to identity of meaning
in the terms baptize and purify. Was not the ordinance of circum-
cision so connected with purification ? Yet the word circumcise does not
signify to purify.
But if all these examples were admitted to imply this meaning, it
would not prove that the rite of baptism is not an immersion. These
examples refer not to baptism. Even on that supposition we should
fight the battle with success.
" The argument," says my antagonist, " from the usage of the writers
of Alexandrine Greek, is now at an end." Would not any one from
reading this conclude that he had brought from these writers, examples
in which the word is used without reference to mode? But has he
alleged one such 1 All he has done is to allege that the word is some-
times used, when, without reference to the testimony of the word, im-
59
466 FIRST REPLY TO PRESIDENT BEECHER.
mersion is improbable. Does this imply that the thing is improbable,
after the word gives its testimony? Have I not exemplified this by an
instance from Columbine English? He need not go to Alexandrine
Greek for such instances ; they might occur in the oldest Greek without
affecting the question
Section X. — Mr. B. next professes to find proof in the Fathers.
Proof from the Fathers that baptizo signifies to purify ! As well might
he profess to find in them proof for the existence of railroads and steam-
coaches. There is no such proof; there is not an instance in all the
Fathers in which the word, or any of its derivatives, are so used. With-
out exception, they use the word always for immersion. Now a reader
not acquainted with the Fathers, may ask himself, how it is possible
that two persons can give a directly contradictory account of the testi-
mony of the same documents. Without any reference to the veracity of
either of the combatants, he may say, the fact must be so easily decided,
that it is strange that any of them should be rash in his testimony.
Let such a reader attend a moment to me, and I will ask no learning in
him, in order to enable him to decide between us : all I demand is a
little common sense.
Well, how does Mr. B. bring out his proof? If the writings of the
Fathers prove that they understood this word in Mr. B.'s sense, must
not Mr. B. prove this by alleging examples of the use of the word in
this sense? Common sense, what do you say? But Mr. B. attempts
no such thing ; he does not appeal to the use of the word by the Fathers,
but to other words applied by the Fathers to the same ordinance.
Now I do not charge my opponent with dishonesty in the use of this
argument : I do him the justice to believe that he is the dupe of his
own sophistry ; but it is a sophistry childishly weak. I have already
disposed of this argument. It assumes as an axiom, that words that
apply to the same ordinance are identical in signification. Every child
may see that this is not fact. The same ordinance is called by different
persons, the Lord's supper, the communion, the ordinance, the sacrament,
the eucharist, &c. Does this imply that each of these words is identical
in meaning with the term Lorcts supper, or that they are identical in
meaning with each other ? Every one of these words has a meaning of
its own, while they all agree in designating the same ordinance. Bap-
tism itself is by some called christening. Does this imply that the word
baptism signifies christening? I could produce examples at will ; but
no reader can need more. The Fathers called baptism regeneration ; but
they never supposed that the word baptism signified regeneration. Both
the words referred to the same ordinance, but they referred to it under
a different view of it. Baptism was its appropriated name from its
mode : regeneration was its name from its supposed effect. When I say
William the First, and William the Conqueror, I refer to the same man,
but I do not mean that the first signifies the Conqueror. William the
First, is the designation of the man as king of England — the Conqueror,
is a designation of the same man from the way in which he became
king. Even if katharizo itself had been the appropriated name of the
FIRST REPLY TO PRESIDENT BEECHER. 467
ordinance of baptism, it would not be identical in meaning with the
word regeneration. In fact, this is one of the words which the Fathers
employed to denote baptism, yet this did not make it identical in mean-
ing either with baptism or with the other words by which they desig-
nated this ordinance. When baptism is called purification by the ancients,
it is considered as it was supposed to purify : when it was called regene-
ration, it was considered as a new birth. Purification is baptism under
one view of it : regeneration is the same ordinance under another view.
Purification does not signify new birth ; nor does new birth signify puri-
fication. A hundred words or terms might be used to denote the same
ordinance, without implying that any two of them were perfectly iden-
tical in meaning. In fact, a great multitude were actually employed,
while each designated the same ordinance in its own peculiar manner.
The Fathers employed a great multitude of terms to designate baptism ;
but they did not make the word baptism designate the same idea with
each or any of these terms.
' What is it to purify the spirit," he asks, " but to regenerate ?" It is
true that they who are purified are regenerated, and they who are
regenerated are purified. Still, however, the terms have quite different
meanings. Regeneration is a new birth : purification is an effect of this.
I might now dismiss this part of the subject ; but our author gives us
such a delicious morsel of his philosophy, in accounting for the fact that
baptism came to be considered as regeneration, that I am tempted to
take a look at it for a moment. Nothing enables us with greater cer-
tainty to estimate the powers of an author, than his attempt at philosophy.
" Now," says the writer, " in a case where analogical senses exist, one
external and material, and the other spiritual, it is natural that they
should run into each other, and terms applied to one be applied to the
other. Thus, if baptizo means to purify, then there is natural purifica-
tion and spiritual purification, or regeneration, and there would be a
tendency to use anagennao to denote the latter idea, and also to transfer
it to the external rite; and, at first, it would be so done as merely to
be the name of the rite, and not to denote its actual efficacy."
Upon this I remark : 1. — The author here mistakes what he calls the
external and material sense, for the emblematic sense. It is of the em-
blematic sense, as distinguished from the proper sense of the word, he
is speaking ; and not of an external or material sense as distinguished
from a spiritual sense. Purification, for instance, first applied to exter-
nal things, and afterwards by analogy was transferred to the mind. But
it is not of external, or material, or natural purification, as distinguished
from spiritual purification, he is speaking ; but of emblematic purifica-
tion, as distinguished from the purification of the soul and body from
sin. Every external, or material, or natural purification, is not the puri-
fication of which he is speaking, namely, baptism. It is only when the
purification is emblematic, that it is the purification of which he speaks.
The relation, then, which subsists between what he calls the external or
material sense, and the spiritual sense, is not the same with the relation
that subsists between the emblematic sense and the proper sense of
the word. Purification applies as properly to mind as to matter, and
468 FIRST REPLY TO PRESIDENT BEECHER.
designates neither of them separately, but includes both of them. To
apply to either of them separately, the word has not to give up its mean-
ing, or to run into a different meaning.
2. The running of two senses into each other is philological transub-
stantiation. Two senses cannot run into each other, nor can one sense
run into another sense. This language is paradoxical. Not only does
the whale swallow Jonah, but Jonah at the same time swallows the
whale. Whatever change may take place in the application of words,
one sense cannot become another: this would imply that a thing is
different from itself.
3. The author here supposes that purification in baptism is natural
purification. But is the design of baptism to wash away the filth of the
flesh ? Is not the purification of baptism an emblematic purification ?
4. He tells us that on the supposition that baptizo signifies to purify,
with reference to both material and spiritual purification, there would
be a tendency to use the word anagennao to denote the latter idea.
What is the latter idea? Is it not spiritual purification, or regenera-
tion ? What is this but to say, that, on a certain condition, there is a
tendency to use a word in its own sense? There is a tendency to use
the word regeneration for regeneration ; and a tendency to use a word
that signifies spiritual purification for spiritual purification. A wonder-
ful tendency indeed ! Does not the author himself explain regeneration
as signifying spiritual purification? He must be a hardy sceptic who
will deny this.
5. He tells us here, that if baptizo signifies to purify, with reference
to both natural and spiritual purification, there will be a tendency to
transfer the word anagennao to the external site. Now would not this ten-
dency be the same, on the supposition that the purification was to be found
in the nature of the rite, as if it were found in the name of the rite ?
6. If baptizo signifies both natural and spiritual purification, and
anagennao signifies only the latter, what tendency is there to transfer
anagennao to a rite designated by baptizo, in that part of its significa-
tion which anagennao does not possess; abandoning that part of the
meaning of baptizo which it does possess? Surely if from the partial
agreement of baptizo and anagennao, the latter is transferred to a rite
designated by the former, it must be in that part of their meaning in
which they agree — not in a meaning in which they differ. This is a very
perverse and capricious tendency. Can the author illustrate this ten-
dency ? He affirms it, but does not show it.
7. He tells us that in the first application of anagennao to baptism, it
would be as the name of the rite without reference to its effect. This
is absurd and self-evidently false. How does anagennao come to be
applied to the rite of baptism ? Is it not, even on the author's theory,
because it agrees with baptizo in a part of its meaning? If then it is
applied to the rite, from its agreement with the appropriated name of
the rite in a part of its meaning, it must be applied to the rite in that
part of its meaning in which it agrees with baptizo, and not in that part
of the meaning of baptizo with which it has nothing common. No
axiom is more clear than this.
FIRST REPLY TO PRESIDENT BEECHER. 469
8. Of all the terms by which the Fathers designated baptism, there is
not one of them conferred on it on the principle supposed by the author.
Even katharismos is not given to this ordinance on the principle of the
connexion between analogical meanings ; but as the nature of the rite is
supposed to be a purification. The various names are conferred on it,
not from their relation to the word baptizo, the appropriated name of
the ordinance, but from the supposed nature of the ordinance. Any
child may understand this. It is called initiation, for instance. Has
initiation any relation to the meaning of the word baptizo ? It is called
illumination. Has the word illumination any relation to the word baptizo,
whatever may be the meaning of baptizo ? The author's philosophy is
false, absurdly and extravagantly false. He gives us eight lines of phi-
losophy. I will give a premium to any one who will produce me a
greater quantity of absurdity in the same compass, under the appearance
of wisdom. The only merit this nonsense can claim, is that it is original
nonsense. No one these seventeen hundred years has ever thought of
accounting for the opinion that baptism is regeneration, on the principle
of President Beecher. It grieves me to be obliged to write in this man-
ner ; but I cannot avoid it. Half-learned people will think that this
account of the phenomenon is an unparalleled effort of philosophy ; and
thousands will rely on it who cannot pretend to fathom it. They will
conclude either that he is right, or that the subject is so deeply involved
in obscurity, that it is utterly impossible to bring the truth to light. I
cannot avoid showing that there is neither learning nor logic in the
attempt to unsettle the meaning of the word in question.
But the source from which baptismal regeneration springs is not left
to philosophical investigation. The ground on which the Fathers con-
sidered baptism to be the means of regeneration, and to be essential to
salvation, is clearly attested by themselves. The very passage which
Mr. B. quotes from Justin Martyr fully explains this : it was their view
of John iii. 3. In giving an account of the dedication of Christians to
God, Justin Martyr tells us, that after a certain process, the candidates
were led by the Christians to a place where there was water, and were
regenerated as they themselves had been regenerated. Here I observe
that President Beecher is mistaken in supposing that anagennao here
describes the rite. It does not describe the rite ; but tells us what is
effected by the rite : the persons baptized were regenerated by baptism.
Justin then tells us the reason why he says they were regenerated by
baptism. " For," says he, " they are washed or bathed in the water, in
the name of the Father," &c. Does not this imply that the washing
was the baptism ; and that by that washing they were regenerated ? It
is because they were so washed, that he considers them to have been
born again. Regeneration is not here considered as the name of the
ordinance, nor as synonymous with its name ; but as an effect of the
rite, which consists in a certain washing.
Justin Martyr next expressly refers to John iii. 3, as their authority
for considering that regeneration was effected by baptism. He then
refers to Isaiah i. 16, to prove the same thing. Justin subjoins an
account which he alleges they had from the apostles, of the necessity cf
470 FIRST REPLY TO PRESIDENT BEECHER.
this second birth, by a contrast of it with the first birth ; and in this
he expressly asserts, that they obtained remission of former sins " in the
water." Here is a foundation for all the towers of Babylon.
Now if President Beecher had this document before him, as his quo-
tation leads us to believe, how could he give such a philosophical account
of the origin of the belief of baptismal regeneration ? How could he
doubt that baptism was understood by the Fathers to be a washing of
the whole body ? Is it not described as a washing of the person ? On
what account are candidates led to places where there was water? Are
not baptized persons considered as having their former sins remitted in
the water? What is the hardihood of men who can presume to allege
the Fathers on the other side !
I may observe also that the editor of Justin, in a note, refers to
Clemens Alexandrinus, who says, that " the same thing is often called
gift, and illumination, and initiation, and bathing. Bathing, because
through it we are cleansed from our sins ; illumination, because through
it that holy light which is salvation is beheld," &c. Justin himself says
that this ivashing is called illumination, because the minds of those who
learn these things are enlightened. Is it not obvious to a child that every
one of these names is given to the rite on a different ground ? Not one
of these is given as a synonyme of baptismos. It is washing for one
reason, it is illumination for another, and initiation for another. Even
in this very passage, Justin commences by referring to baptism as a
dedication. See Justin Martyr, p. S9, Thirlby's Ed.
It is strange to astonishment that President Beecher did not perceive
that each of the words applied by the Fathers to the rite of baptism, has
the same right to force its meaning on the word baptism, as the word
purification has, from the fact of this application. If any one chooses to
adopt the theory that the word baptism signifies illumination, or initia-
tion, or dedication, &c. &c. ; may he not allege that the Fathers called
baptism by this name? The answer to all is, the Fathers did call bap-
tism by all these names ; but they did not make the word baptism signify
any of them. It was baptism from its mode : it was each of all those
other things from its nature. He who cannot perceive this, is not fit
for the discussion of a deep philological question.
" This view," says Mr. B., " explains not only the early prevalence of
the idea of baptismal regeneration, but also the other extreme, the entire
denial of water baptism." There is no philosophy in this observation.
Will a rite be more likely to be perverted from its name, than it will be
from its nature ? Is it not obvious that whatever may be the meaning
of its name, if it implies purification in its nature, or import, the sup-
posed tendency will be the same ? And as to the latter part of the
argument, whatever may be the meaning of the name, or even the import
of the rite, when it is grossly perverted, there will be the same tendency
for one extreme to produce another. Some in flying from the perver-
sion of the ordinance, will relieve themselves by denying the ordinance
altogether. Whether the name of the rite signifies immersion, or pour-
ing, or sprinkling, or purification, or initiation, or dedication, &c. &c,
if purification is implied in its nature, there will be the same tendency to
FIRST REPLY TO PRESIDENT BEECHER. 471
pervert it ; and when the perversion is perceived, there will be the same
tendency to get rid of the perversion, by freeing themselves from the rite.
" Besides this general reasoning from well-known facts," says Mr. B.,
" there is also philological proof that the word was often used by the
Fathers in the sense katharizo."
I. Now how does he prove this. I am fond of philological proof.
His first philological proof that the Fathers often used the word in the
sense of purify, is taken from the passage in Justin Martyr already con-
sidered ; in which he refers to baptism by the phrase loutron poiountai,
" they wash or purify them ;" that is, there is proof that the word is here
used in a certain sense, when the word is not here used at all !
2. He here assumes that wash and purify are the same. They are
not the same ; and they are distinguished in the very passage quoted from
Justin Martyr. The words which he cites from Isaiah are lousasthc,
Itatharoi genesthe, " wash ye, make you clean." Washing is the action
performed — purification is the effect of this action. Will President
Beecher never learn to distinguish things that differ ? Even if the word
baptism signified washing, this would not make it signify purification in
general. Even this, instead of proving, would overturn Mr. B.'s theory.
3. The phrase loutron poiountai in Justin Martyr, as I have already
showed, does not designate regeneration, but the action by which rege-
neration was supposed to be effected, or as President Beecher himself
here says, " the mode of regeneration."
4. Baptism is a washing, and is so called by the Scriptures as well as
by the Fathers ; but this does not imply that the word baptism signifies
washing. I think by this time I must have made this distinction clear to
my opponent.
5. This phrase is not only not inconsistent with immersion, but im-
merse is the only thing that will explain it. A purification performed by
sprinkling or pouring a few drops of water, would not be a loutron.
Mr. B.'s second argument to prove that the Fathers used the word as
signifying purification, is, that Chrysostom says, that Christ " calls his
cross and death a cup and baptism; a cup, because he readily drank it;
baptism, because by it he purified the world." But is it not obvious
that Chrysostom refers not to the name of the rite, but to the rite itself
in its import? Whatever may be supposed the meaning of the name
of this rite, it is in its nature a rite of purification. The meaning of
Chrysostom is perfectly the same, whatever may be supposed the mean-
ing of the word baptism. It is quite immaterial whether the idea of
purification be found in the name, or in the nature, of the ordinance.
Shall I never be able to force this into the mind of my antagonist? If
he would allow himself to perceive this distinction, he would be delivered
from much false reasoning. I will then try to make the thing plain to
every child. When it is said that " Christ our passover is sacrificed for
us," it is implied that the passover was a sacrifice. But does this imply
that the word passover signifies sacrifice ? The phrase circumcision in
heart, signifying purity of mind, implies that circumcision denoted purity.
But does this imply that the term circumcision means purity ? Will
Mr. B. need another lesson ?
472 FIRST REPLY TO PRESIDENT BEECHER.
But there must be in my antagonist a most astonishing want of per-
spicacity, else he would have perceived that he was making a snare for
his own feet, out of which he could not possibly escape. If the calling
of Christ's cross and death a baptism, because it purines, implies that
the word baptism signifies purification, then, for the same reason, does
not the calling of his cross and death a cup, because he readily drank it,
imply that the word cup signifies drinking ? Try now, Mr. President,
to escape out of this snare. Is it not obvious to every man of common
sense, that Chrysostom refers to baptism in its import or nature, and not
to its name ? There is nothing in the name that signifies either purifi-
cation or drinking. The same answer serves for the quotations from
Theophylact, and for all others of a similar kind. The purification is
in the nature, not in the name of the rite.
Mr. B.'s third argument to prove that the Fathers used the word as
signifying purification, is that they "sometimes, in describing the rite,
use purify alone;" that is, a great number of passages in which the
Fathers did not use the word at all, prove that they used it in a certain
sense ! This fact proves that the Fathers used purify in reference to the
ordinance of baptism, not that they used the word baptism as signifying
purification. I have already fully explained the principle on which this
word and all the other names were given to this ordinance. None of
them are of the same meaning with the word baptism.
Mr. B. seems quite aware that the authority of the Fathers for the
use of this word is against him ; and endeavours to escape from this
argument. " It would be of no use here," says he, " to say that the
Fathers did in fact immerse ; this could not decide that purify was not
the sense."
1. If the Fathers immersed, it proves that they considered immersion
as the proper mode of the ordinance.
2. The authority of the Fathers on this question is not their practice,
but their use of the word. They not only immersed in baptism, but they
use the word always for immersion. They knew the meaning of the
language which they spoke. On their practice I should not have the least
reliance on any question.
3. If there is a single instance of immersion, it is evidence of a con-
viction of its necessity. Would any one go to a river to plunge, if he
could be sprinkled in a parlour?
4. Why does Mr. B. doubt as to the practice of the Fathers, when
Justin Martyr shows him what was the usual practice?
"And even if it could be shown," adds the author, " that some of them
use the word baptizo to denote the act of immersion in baptism, it would
avail nothing ; it would only prove inconsistent usage."
1. " Could it be shown that some of the Fathers used baptizo for the
act of immersion in baptism !" Might he not as well say, could it be
shown that the sun shines at noon-day? Can the man who will not
concede this, be in earnest in the search of truth? Can any man who
has read the Fathers consider it as a matter of doubt whether any of
them use this word in this sense ? No fact in history can be better
ascertained. Most of the best established facts on record have not as
FIRST REPLY TO PRESIDENT BEECHER. 473
clear evidence. If the words in which they are recorded were to be
interpreted on Mr. B.'s principles, not a fact of them could remain in
evidence.
2. This assumes that the author has proved a contrary practice. But
he has not proved this in a single instance.
3. If it is admitted that some of the Fathers used the word in the
sense of immersion, all the arguments alleged by Mr. B. will be quashed.
They can prove nothing against an admitted fact.
4. If I can explain all his alleged facts in accordance with my sense
of the word, and if it is admitted that some of the Fathers use the word
in this sense, is it likely that his sense of the word is the just one, when
it makes the Fathers inconsistent with one another and themselves in the
use of a common word ?
5. Inconsistent usage can never be fairly alleged, if any way of re-
conciliation is possible. Only on this principle could the Scripture itself
be freed from the charge of contradiction ; and I have shown the
reconciliation.
6. Inconsistent usage cannot be charged till each of the alleged
meanings is in full proof. Our meaning is in proof that candour can
never question : the other meaning is not in proof.
7. Is it on the authority of such arguments as are produced by Mr.
B. that we are to charge inconsistency of usage with respect to a com-
mon word, on writers who lived at the same time, and derived their
knowledge of the ordinance from the same sources?
8. Were we for the sake of argument to admit that the word had a
secondary meaning, and were we to indulge Mr. B. in supposing that it
was in that signification applied to designate the ordinance of Christ,
this would not produce an inconsistency of usage in the use of the word
with respect to that ordinance. The sense in which it was used by the
apostles must have been known most assuredly to all that either heard
them, or read their writings. To suppose that persons who spoke the
Greek language might understand their words in a sense different from
that in which they used them, would be to charge the Scripture as not
being a revelation. Whatever was the sense in which the apostles used
the word, must have been known to all who heard them or read their
writings. To talk of "two currents" is to speak without thinking.
9. Can any other such inconsistency of usage be found ? The cause
that produced this inconsistency must have produced many others.
10. This Alexandrine Greek is a perjured witness. When it is brought
into court by the sprinklers, it most solemnly swears that the word re-
ceived a secondary meaning of sprinkling or pouring, and in this sense
it is applied to the rite of baptism. When it has been tampered with by
Mr. B., it as solemnly on oath renounces such a meaning ; and deposes
that its true secondary meaning in this ordinance is purify. May it not
with equal propriety be brought into court by initiate, dedicate, illumi-
nate, and by every one of all the numerous claimants? What is it that
this witness ever refused to swear, when solicited by a sufficient tempta-
tion ? If President Beecher should turn into Greek letters, a document
in any of the languages of the Indian tribes, I have no doubt that this
60
474 FIRST REPLY TO PRESIDENT BEECHER.
witness would swear in an English court that it is good Alexandrine
Greek.
11. Where is this Alexandrine Greek to be found? If it exists at
all, must it not be in the Septuagint? Yet no such usage prevails
in that translation. The word is used here, and by the other Jewish
writers, perfectly in the same sense as it is used by classical Greeks.
The case of Naaman the Syrian presents this fact in the strongest
light. Instead of baptizo having the sense of katharizo, it took seven
baptizos to make one katharizo. And even a child may here see that
the washing and the cleansing are different ideas. " Wash in Jordan
seven times, and thou shalt be clean." Washing is the means of effect-
ing the purification.
12. If baptizo signified purify in Alexandrine Greek, why is it that
in all the numerous passages in which purification is spoken of, this
word is not once to be found in the Greek translation of the Old Testa-
ment ? Is it possible that a word in its primary sense signifying to dip,
should, from its constant application to the rights of purification among
the Jews who spoke the Greek language, come to signify to purify ; yet
in all the translations used by those Hellenistic Jews, the word should
never occur in that sense, when speaking of their different purifications?
I confidently affirm that this observation must appear convincing to
every one who is capable of weighing it. Is it possible that a word could
get a secondary meaning, from being so constantly applied to certain
rites, when, in speaking of these rites, it is never used in that sense?
Now let any one who knows only so much Greek as to enable him to
trace the two words baptizo and katharizo in a Greek concordance of
the Old Testament ; and I pledge myself that, if he has a spark of can-
dour or honesty, he will be convinced.
Nay, I will make the matter plain even to the most unlearned. Let
them take an English concordance, and trace the word purify ; and when
they are assured, on sufficient testimony, that baptizo is not used in any
of the places, will they ask any other evidence that baptizo did not, in
the estimation of the Greek translators, signify to purify ? The " English-
man's Greek Concordance" will show this at a glance.
13. Even the Jews who lived in countries where the Greek language
was spoken, would use their own language in their worship. There
could be no ground for their giving a Greek word a secondary meaning,
from their frequent use of it in religious matters. There is no philo-
sophy in this philology.
14. If a secondary meaning was likely to be given to this word from
its frequent application to purifying rites, would not this principle ope-
rate more powerfully on the Hebrew word which was always used for
immersion by the Jews? Yet the Hebrew word that signifies to dip,
never obtained the secondary meaning of purify.
15. If frequent application of a modal word to rites of purification,
would confer a secondary meaning, rantizo would have been more likely
than baptizo to receive the meaning of purify. It is more frequently
applied to purifying rites than the other.
16. Baptizo is by no writer, either with respect to things sacred or
FIRST REPLY TO PRESIDENT BEECHER. 475
civil, ever applied to any object but such as may be immersed. To
things palpably too great for immersion it was never applied. To the
purification of a house, of the city Jerusalem, of the temple, it is applied
by no writer. Now, if it signified purification as definitely as katharizo
itself, how is it that it is never used to designate the purification of any
object too large to be immersed 1 If it signified purification, we should
certainly, on some occasion, find it applied to the largest objects that
were purified, as well as the smallest.
17. Had it been intended that the word to be appropriated to desig-
nate this rite should signify purification, katharismos itself would, with-
out doubt, have been the word. This suited in every respect. Why,
then, should another word be employed, which certainly was not so
suitable for the supposed purpose 1 What should prevent katharismos ?
What should give the preference to baptisma ? Was baptisma employed
in order to create confusion ?
18. Though the rite of baptism is an emblematical purification, yet
purification is not the only thing represented by the emblem. The
communion of the believer with Christ in his death, burial, and resur-
rection, and his salvation by that union, and only by that union, is also
represented. Katharis?nos, then, was not suitable as the appropriated
name of the ordinance.
19. Is there any Scripture rite in which the way in which the things
appointed are to be used, is not also appointed 1 Now, according to
Mr. B. there is no specific way appointed for the performance of this
rite. We may plunge the person once, or three times ; we may pour
water all over him, or pour a little on any part of him ; we may sprinkle
him all over, or sprinkle a few drops on any part of him ; we may rub a
little water on any part of him with our finger, as in the eucharist the
ancients rubbed the child's lips, or we may rub him all over. Any
application of water, according to Mr. B., will be equally sufficient for
this ordinance. Can sobriety of mind receive this doctrine 1 Could
sobriety of judgment have suggested it?
I have now examined Mr. B.'s arguments, and there is not the shadow
of evidence that the word baptism signifies purification. I have met
every thing that has even a shadow of plausibility; and completely dis-
sected my antagonist. Am I not now entitled to send purify to the
museum as a lusus naturce, to be placed by the side of its brother pop ?
Section XI. — Facts which disprove Mr. Beecher's Theory. —
Having fully refuted every argument presented by Mr. Beecher, I shall
now, as briefly as possible, state a number of facts which dispute his theory.
PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE WHICH EXPLAIN BAPTISM AS AN IMMERSION.
Not only do occurrences of the word in question prove that it signifies
immersion and not purification, but the Scriptures themselves explain it
as an immersion. No candid mind can read these passages without
being impressed with this conviction.
Rom. vi. 4, for instance, must bring conviction to every mind not
shut against evidence. All attempts to explain it otherwise are unnatural,
476 FIRST REPLY TO PRESIDENT BEECHER.
forced, and perfectly unsuccessful. The same may be said with respect
to Col. ii. 12. The apostle in these passages reasons on immersion as
the mode of this ordinance, and draws conclusions from its import.
Is not this the most satisfactory way of bringing the truth of criticism
to the test? The phraseology of 1 Peter iii. 21, gives the same testi-
mony. Baptism is explained here in a way that will coincide with no
view of this ordinance, but that of immersion.
PASSAGES WHICH IMPLY THAT IMMERSION WAS THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
Baptism is not only explained by Scripture as immersion, but many
passages imply that this was its mode. Of this kind are the passages
which represent the persons as going to the water, being baptized in
the water, and after baptism coming up out of the water. Could mad-
ness itself allege any other reason for this, than that baptism was an
immersion of the body ? Even if it should be supposed a washing of
the body without reference to mode, it is equally fatal to purify. It
could not mean purification in general, or purification by a few drops
of water, if the whole person must be washed. It must be a purifica-
tion by washing the whole body.
The reason alleged for John's baptizing in Enon, John iii. 23, implies
that baptism was immersion. Had any mode of purification by water
been sufficient, there would have been no need for many waters, or
much water.
Christ refers to his death as a baptism in a figurative sense ; but if
the word in a figurative sense signifies afflictions, the literal sense can-
not be anything but immersion. Neither purify, nor sprinkle, nor any
other supposed meaning, will admit the figurative meaning, of afflictions,
or calamities. This is the figure also by which the calamities of the
Saviour are figuratively designated in the Psalms. He is represented
as overwhelmed with great waters.
PASSAGES WHICH ALLUDE TO BAPTISM AS AN IMMERSION.
There are many passages of Scripture which allude to baptism in such
a way as to show that immerse was its mode. Of this kind is John iii.
5, a passage the misunderstanding of which has laid a foundation for the
grossest superstitions of nominal Christianity. To be born of water
most evidently implies, that water is the womb out of which the person
who is born proceeds. That this is the reference of the figure, whatever
may be supposed to be its meaning, cannot for a moment be doubted by
any reflecting mind. Here the figure must signify the washing of the
believer in the blood of Christ, which is figuratively represented by the
water in baptism. This our Lord stated in a figurative manner, as he
did other things, which were more clearly to be exhibited in the teach
ing of his apostles. Who can doubt that it is the blood of Jesus Christ
that washes away the sins of the believer ?
Many persons on both sides of the question are unwilling to allow any
allusion to baptism here, in order to avoid the supposed consequence,
that it would imply the necessity of baptism to salvation. It has always
appeared to me that candour cannot deny that there is an allusion to
FIRST REPLY TO PRESIDENT BEECHER. 477
baptism ; and I will never, for fear of the consequences, refuse to admit
anything that appears to be in evidence. But no such consequences can
flow from this admission. In whatever way its reference may be ex-
plained, it cannot possibly imply that baptism is essential to salvation.
Were this the case, then it would not always be necessarily true that
faith is salvation. Were this true, it would imply that an external work
performed by man is necessary to salvation. I need not state the
thousandth part of the absurdity that would flow from this doctrine.
Whatever is the truth of the matter, this cannot be true ; it is contrary
to the whole current of Scripture. One fact will by example prove that
baptism is not necessary to salvation : the thief who believed on the
cross was saved without baptism. This single fact will for ever forbid
such a meaning to be taken out of this passage.
Having, then, in the most satisfactory manner ascertained from Scrip-
ture that baptism cannot be essential to salvation, we may next examine
what is the figurative import of this expression, bom of water. To be
bom of water, then, as a figurative expression, signifies to be washed or
cleansed from our sins. In what we are to be washed we must learn
from other parts of Scripture, which teach us that we are to be washed
in the blood of Christ.
The objection which naturally presents itself to the considering of the
water, in reference to the thing signified by the water, is, that this is
supposed to be immediately added — " and of the Spirit." It is supposed
that bom of the Spirit is the thing signified by born of zvater. But this
is not the case ; to be born of the Spirit is not the thing signified by
the figure bom of water. The water in baptism is not the emblem of
the Spirit, but of the blood of Christ. The Spirit washes us, not as
being himself like water, but as the agent who uses the water by which
we are cleansed, that is, the blood of Jesus Christ. Let a man understand
this, and he will cease to feel difficulty on this passage. To be bom of
water, and to be born of the Spirit, are expressions which do not refer
to the same thing. The one refers to the blood of Christ, and the other
to the Spirit who is the agent of the spiritual birth, and of the washing
away of sins through the application of Christ's blood. We must be
born both of the blood of Christ and of the Spirit. It is in the blood of
Christ that the Spirit washes us. There is the washing in Christ's blood,
and also the renewing of the Spirit.
Let it be observed, that though this passage alludes to baptism as the
foundation of the figure which it employs, yet baptism is only alluded
to— not mentioned. It is not said that except a man is baptized he
cannot be saved ; but, except he is bom of water. Now figuratively
considered, a man may be born of water without having water literally
applied to him. He is born of water when he is washed from sin,
in whatever way sin is to be washed away. There are many figurative
expressions of this nature — and on this fact I will venture to rest
the whole solution of the difficulty. When poets are said to drink
of the Castalian springs, the figure is perfectly the same : there is no
real drinking : it is the supposed reception of the spirit of poetry. So
in being bom of water — the thing meant is the being washed in the
478 FIRST REPLY TO PRESIDENT BEECHER.
blood of Christ. If a person presents us with a specimen of his poetry,
which we do not approve ; may we not answer that except a man drink
of the Castalian springs, he will never be a poet 1 Do we mean literal
drinking at the place 1
- That this is the true explanation of the passage, we have infallible evi-
dence. I can produce an inspired commentator to warrant my solution
of this difficulty. Christ gave himself for the church, " that he might
sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word." Eph. v.
26. Here it is expressly said, that the washing of water is by the word.
The word is the means by which the believer is washed in the blood of
Christ. The whole church is supposed to be washed in this way. The
believer, then, is washed by the word, even although, from ignorance of
his duty, or from want of opportunity, he has never been washed in
water. I may observe, also, that this is another passage of Scripture
which alludes to baptism as a washing of the whole person. A purification
with a few drops of water would not suit the phraseology. Here I ob-
serve, also, that sanctification and cleansing, or purification and washing,
are considered as different from each other. Sanctification and purifi-
cation are not exactly coincident ; nor is either of them coincident with
washing; they are all effected by the instrumentality of the word.
" But ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified, in the
name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God." I Cor. vi. 11.
Here also washing and sanctification are distinguished; and both are
effected in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
Faith in Christ is that through which they are washed ; and the Spirit
of our God is the agent who washes them by this means. This washing
is represented in baptism, to which this passage refers.
In Rev. i. 5, Christ is said to wash us from our sins in his own blood.
Christ washes us by his Spirit in his blood; but his blood is the cleansing
element in which we are washed. This shows that to be born of water
is to be washed in the blood of Christ.
When Paul says : * My little children, of whom I travail in birth
again until Christ be formed in you," Gal. iv. 19, is there any literal
travailing in birth ? "I bare you on eagles' wings," Exodus xix. 4, is a
similar figure. Would a child understand it literally? Gill shows very
bad taste, when he supposes that it is necessary to supply as, the note of
similitude, to prevent it from being understood in the literal meaning.
Why then should there be a literal washing with water in the phrase
born of water?
Is not the phrase born of God figurative, referring to that spiritual
birth of which God is the author, and in which he is our Father ? So
born of water is that birth which is represented by being immersed in
water.
The heart is said to be purified by faith, Acts xv. 9. Now, if faith
purifies the heart, the water in baptism cannot be essential to the purifi-
cation. It must be an emblem — not a means. The purification is
effected without it, and before its application.
It is on a good conscience produced by faith in Christ, as distinguished
from the external washing, that Peter places the value: 1 Peter iii. 21
FIRST REPLY TO PRESIDENT BEECHER. 479
" Seeing," says Peter, " ye have purified your souls in obeying the
truth through the Spirit." 1 Peter i. 22. It is the belief of the truth,
then, that purines the soul — not the water of baptism. This purification
is effected by the Spirit : he is the agent, and the truth is the instrument.
The water is an emblem ; but whether it has place or not, it has no
share in the effect, either as an efficient, or as an instrument. " Being
born again," says he, " not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by
the word of God." In the whole process of the spiritual birth the word
of God is the only means, as the Spirit is the only agent. In Heb. x.
22, believers are said to have their bodies washed with pure water. This
must be an allusion to baptism ; and what could answer to this but im-
mersion ? It is a bathing of the whole body. Purification could not
correspond to this. No application of water but a washing of the whole
person could suit this language.
" Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according
to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing
of the Holy Ghost." Here the washing of regeneration is expressly
distinguished from the renewing of the Holy Ghost. What in John iii.
5, is called born of water, is here called the washing of regeneration ;
and what is there called born of the Spirit, is here called the renewing
of the Holy Ghost. Born of water, then, and born of the Spirit, are
two distinct things ; and born of the Spirit is not, as many suppose, the
explanation or meaning of born of water. The washing of regeneration
is the washing that takes place when we are born again of the incorrupt-
ible seed of the word, or by the belief of the truth. We are washed
by faith in the blood of Christ. This washing takes place before baptism,
and there must be evidence that it has taken place, before any person is
entitled to be emblematically washed in baptism. The person who is
thus washed is also renewed by the Holy Ghost. We are regenerated by
faith, and not by the rite of baptism. Baptism is an emblem of this
washing and regeneration.
Those who would reduce the conversion of sinners unto God, to a
sort of religious manufacture, understand the washing of regeneration
here, to be the rite of baptism. But though they have the support of
the superstition of the Fathers, they have not the authority of the doctrine
of the apostles. The Scriptures never speak of baptism as regeneration:
regeneration is the act of God — not the effect of a rite performed by
man. The apostle is, in this passage, asserting salvation by mercy, in
express opposition to works of righteousness of our own. In asserting,
then, that we are saved by the washing of regeneration, he cannot mean
we are saved by a work performed on us by human hands.
But if it is a truth, that in this passage the washing of regeneration
is the rite of baptism, and not the doctrine of which baptism is the em-
blem, it is a very melancholy truth with respect to most of those who
believe it. They are not baptized. No person is baptized who is not
immersed; and no person is baptized with Christ's baptism, who is not
baptized as a believer. The great multitude, then, of those who speak
of the necessity of baptism to salvation from the authority of this pas-
sage, are, according to their own view of it, condemned by it. But
480 FIRST REPLY TO PRESIDENT BEECHER.
although every believer ought to be urged with all the authority of Jesus,
to submit to all his commandments, yet neither ignorance of them, nor
want of opportunity to observe them, will exclude them from his favour.
No ordinance of Christ ought ever to be put in the room of Christ. I
will fight the battle of baptism with all zeal ; but I will acknowledge, in
the greatest heat of my zeal, the worst instructed of all the disciples of
Christ. To set at nought the very least of them, is to insult Christ
himself.
The reference to baptism in this passage is decisive of its mode : it
refers to the washing at the birth of an infant. Both the things referred
to, and the word translated washing, imply that the whole body is covered
with water in baptism.
DISSERTATION ON LOUO.
Section XII. — The philosophical linguist, Dr. Campbell, of Aberdeen,
in distinguishing the words louo and nipto, makes the first signify to
wash or bathe the whole body, the last to wash or bathe a part. This
distinction has been generally recognised since the time of Dr. Camp-
bell. Mr. Beecher calls it in question, yet he does not touch the subject
with the hand of a master. He merely alleges an objection which he
thinks calculated to bring confusion into what is thought to be clear ;
but he gives no additional light by any learned observation of his own.
I shall endeavour to settle this question by evidence, founded on the
practice of the language, as well as the practice of the New Testament.
I shall as much as possible avoid the technicalities of criticism, and as
little as possible disfigure my page with Greek quotation. I request the
merely English reader to understand that I intend to carry him along,
with me. There is very little real criticism which may not be made
obvious to good sense, without the knowledge of the language which the
criticism respects. All that my unlearned reader will be obliged to take
on trust, is the fairness of my references to my authorities ; and for this
he has the security that I am open to the assault of all my enemies, if I
unfairly represent.
Dr. Campbell's distinction in the use of the two words referred to, is
well founded on fact, but he has scarcely reached the exact truth. It is
this that lays his doctrine open to the objection of Mr. Beecher. That
this distinction in the use of these words is fairly made out by the ex-
amples alleged by Dr. Campbell, and by the practice of the New Testa-
ment and Septuagint, is a fact that cannot be overturned. That it is a
fact established by classical authority, I will show afterwards. But the
reason alleged for this usage by Dr. Campbell is not the true reason. It
is not because one of the words signifies to wash or bathe a part, and
the other signifies to wash or bathe the whole body : the difference is in
the action of the verbs ; they are not the same washing. One of them
may most generally be translated by our word ?vash, though icash is
rather general for it ; and the other may almost always be translated by
our word bathe, though we sometimes translate it also by wash. In the
one, the washing is by the pressure and motion of the water without
manual operation, as in our word bathe, yet this bathing may also be
FIRST REPLY TO PRESIDENT BEECHER. 4S1
accompanied with washing by the hand, though it is not signified by it.
In the other, the action of the hand in the washing is almost always
necessary. Now this is the reason why the one is generally applied to
the bathing of the whole body, and the other to the washing of a part;
because the body is generally bathed in this manner, and the hands
or the feet are generally washed with the operation of the hands. One
plunge in a river is a bathing ; but when the hands are washed, friction
is generally necessary ; a mere bathing is not sufficient. Now, while
this accounts for the fact asserted by Dr. Campbell, it will also allow the
possibility of the application of nijpto to the whole body, if it must be all
successively washed ; and it will allow the application of louo to a part, if
the part is specified. Accordingly, we find in the first Idyl of Bion, that
when Adonis was wounded by a boar, some bring water in golden
caldrons — others bathe his thighs, one of the parts in which he was
wounded. It is evident, however, that even here they must have put
him in a bath for this operation. Yet this does not at all disturb the
fact as to the practice alleged by Dr. Campbell, had he placed that fact
on its true foundation. The criticism is this, and if I mistake not, the
criterion will suit every occurrence : the verb, when it has no regimen
supplied by the context, always refers to the bathing of the whole body ;
when it refers to a part, the context must supply the part. This obser-
vation will guide the reader through the whole practice of the Greek
language. If every part of the body requires the washing that this word
imports, there is nothing to prevent the application of nipto.
We make the same distinction in the use of our word bathe. When
the physician directs his patient to bathe, without giving the verb any
regimen, every one understands it to be a bathing of the whole body.
Yet we also speak of bathing the feet
There is another distinction between these verbs, to which I have
observed no exception. Louo, like our word bathe, applies to animal
bodies only : we do not speak of bathing cloth.
Now to confirm this doctrine by examples. Nothing but the authority
of the practice of the language, can be of any weight. If I have not
thought it too laborious to collect my examples, my readers must not
think that I call them to hard duty, when I demand their patience to
attend to them. No labour can be too much to settle the meaning of the
commandments of God. This can be known only from the meaning of
the language in which they are revealed.
Let us begin with Hesiod. The distinction which Dr. Campbell points
out in the New Testament and Septuagint is as strongly marked in the
second book of the Works and Days. Several examples occur between
lines 343 and 371. He forbids to pour out black wine to Jupiter in the
morning with unwashed hands. He enjoins the washing of the hands
before passing through a stream of running water, and speaks of the
danger of unwashed hands.
On the other hand, when speaking of the whole body, he forbids to
bathe in vessels not purified, and men he forbids to wash their bodies in
a woman's bath. The word used is loutron. What, then, is the loutron
when applied to baptism 1 Let the most unlearned judge from this.
61
482 FIRST REPLY TO PRESIDENT BEECHER.
In the beginning of the Theogony, Hesiod speaks of the Muses of
Helicon, as bathing their tender bodies in the fountain of Termessus,
loessamenai.
Let us now examine the testimony of Herodotus. He tells us, p. 54,
that Cyrus commanded the Persians to assemble on a particular occa-
sion, lelournenois, bathed. Here the verb has no regimen, yet its regimen
is perfectly understood. The distinction, then, is as clear in Herodotus,
as Dr. Campbell asserts it to be in the New Testament and Septuagint.
Speaking of the Egyptians, p. 104, he says they loimtai (bathe) twice
each day, and twice each night. Here the distinction is also marked,
the verb having no regimen. If Mr. B. would bring this to the test of
his probability, by which he would force its meaning from the word
baptize, he would doubtless have much better reason to deny that they
were actually bathed twice each day and twice each night. A baptism
before dinner after market he thinks incredible in the superstition of a
Jew. What shall we make of this purification of the Egyptians? Many
people think it a great yoke for Christians to be obliged once in their
lives to take the trouble of immersion : the devotees of superstition are
contented to be baptized twice every day and twice every night.
Speaking of the Scythians (p. 248) he says that they use a certain
fumigation instead of the bath, loutrou; adding, that they never bathe
the body with water; but the women pouring out water and making a
certain preparation, daub themselves all over with it.
Heraclides, as cited in the Appendix to Herodotus, (p. 594,) observes
that the attendants on the king of Persia, at supper, ministered after
being bathed, leloumenoi. Here the same distinction is recognised. The
verb without a regimen refers to the washing of the person.
Ctesias, as cited in the same Appendix, (p. 664,) asserts that the wives
of the Cynocephali, or dog-headed Indians, lountai (bathe) once a month ;
and that the men do not bathe at all, but only wash their hands, aponi-
zontai. Here the distinctive use of the two verbs is clearly and strongly
marked ; and the verb which refers to bathing has no regimen.
The same writer (p. 666) mentions a fountain in which the Indians
of distinction, men, women, and children, lountai, bathe, for the purpose
of purification, and the expulsion of diseases. Here we see that the
word refers to the bathing of the person; and that people bathed not only
at, but in, the holy well. He tells us also that they all swam in it, as
they could not, on account of the nature of the water, sink in it.
Hippocrates affords us many examples which definitely ascertain the
distinctive meaning of this word ; and precision of meaning is nowhere
so exact as in medical language, with respect to words which designate
the application of fluids. He tells us, (p. 26,) that in summer it is neces-
sary to use many baths, or frequent bathings ; in winter, fewer ; and that
it is more necessary for the morose to be bathed, than for the corpulent.
Here loutron and loucsasthoi, without any regimen, refer to the bathing
of the whole body.
In a certain case he directs (p. 159) to bathe twice or thrice each day,
except the head. Nothing can be more decisive than this exception. The
word itself is supposed so definitely to refer to the whole body, that it is
FIRST REPLY TO PRESIDENT BEECHER. 483
thought necessary to except the part that should not be bathed. After
this, who can doubt that this word, when used without a regimen, refers
to the bathing of the person 1 And would any one, in fulfilling this
medical prescription, rub a little water over the body, instead of putting
the body in the water, as Mr. Beecher fulfils the law of Moses?
That the word may, contrary to the doctrine of Dr. Campbell, be
applied to the bathing of a part, the two following examples leave no
doubt ; and I conceal no part of the truth. For pains in the head, Hip-
pocrates tells us that it is profitable to warm the head thoroughly, bathing
it with much warm water, &c. In the same passage he says, " If the
pain falls into the ears, it is profitable to bathe them with much warm
water." Here, however, the regimen is supplied by the connexion ;
and the part which is the object of the action of the verb is all covered
with the water. Even in such cases as this, the complete covering of the
object by the fluid is as clearly seen as when the whole body is the object
of the bathing.
In the case of tenesmus, (p. 184,) he orders to bathe with warm water,
except the head. Here the word louein without any regimen refers to
the body ; and as there is a part which must not be bathed, that part
must be expressly excepted. Surely this is decisive of the distinctive
meaning of this word. In the same passage he speaks of " softening
the body with warm baths, except the head."
In page 376, he gives us a whole treatise on bathing, referring to
almost every thing in the process, and showing when it is useful, and
when injurious. The vat, or vessel, in which the bathing is effected, is
called puelos ; and to this the verb louein and the noun loutron are con-
stantly applied without any regimen.
The usage of Homer makes the same distinction in these words;
and louo, without a regimen supplied by the connexion, always refers to
the person. His baths for his heroes after battle, and after death, are
well known, and uniformly conform to this distinction. It is so clearly
marked in the tenth book of the Iliad, that were there not another pas-
sage, this is sufficient to establish it. In the beautiful language of
Cowper it is —
"Then, descending to the sea,
Neck, thighs, and legs from sweat profuse they cleansed,
And, so refreshed and purified, their last
Ablution in bright tepid baths performed.
Each then completely laved, and with smooth oil
Anointed, at the well-spread board they sat,
And quaffed, in honour of Minerva, wine
Delicious, froii the brimming beaker drawn."
Here the heroes, returning from slaughter, go down into the ocean
and wash off the sweat, apcnizonto. A mere bathing would not be suffi-
cient ; the gore must be washed off by rubbing — much rubbing ; and
in my judgment, the adverb pollon ought to be joined with the verb, as
designating much washing, and not with the word sweat, according to
Cowper. This, however, is not material to the point which I have now
in hand. It is evident that the poet, in designating the action of cleans-
ing the person by hand-washing, uses the verb niptn. Neck, thighs, and
legs are specified, because these are the parts defiled. But there is no
484 FIRST REPLY TO PRESIDENT BEECHER.
reason to allege, according to Dr. Campbell's ground of the distinction,
that if every part of the body had been so washed with the hand, the
same verb could not have been used. Indeed the wave is expressly said
to wash the body from its filth, nipsen apo chrotos.
In the next place, after this washing in the sea, they went into the
baths, and were bathed, lousanto. Nothing can more clearly manifest a
distinction in the use of these words, and prove that the distinction is
what I have alleged.
In the twenty-third book of the Iliad he applies the word to the
horses of Achilles. Speaking of Patroclus, the poet, according to the
translation of Cowper, says —
"Who many a time hath cleansed
Their manes with water of the crystal brook,
And made them sleek himself with limpid oil."
Here the translator applies the word to the manes of the horses ; but
I think it ought to be applied to the horses themselves. Literally it is,
" he poured limpid oil on their manes, having bathed in pure water."
Now the regimen to bathe may be either the manes of the horses, or the
horses themselves ; and there is every reason to make it the horses.
The horses appear first to have been bathed in the river ; and after this
their manes were anointed with oil to make them shine. I have no
objection that the word should be applied to a part ; but I think it would
hardly be applied to the washing of hair. This interpretation is con-
firmed by a passage in the fifteenth book, in which, referring to Hector,
the poet says —
"As some stalled horse high-pampered, snapping short
His cord, beats under foot the sounding soil,
Accustomed in smooth-sliding streams to lave
Exulting."
Here we see it was usual to bathe horses in rivers
In the third book of the Odyssey the word is used with respect to the
bathing of Telemachus in a bath. When he had bathed, he is repre-
sented as going out of the bath.
In the sixth book, both the words are employed with respect to Ulysses
washing in the river after his shipwreck. This was both a bathing and
a hand-washing. Here the apolouo is applied to his shoulders, which
shows that it may be applied to a part : and nipto is applied to the body
in general. He teashed the brine from his body. This shows that the
distinction is not what it is made by Dr. Campbell, though that, in every
instance, there is a distinction cannot be doubted.
In the eighth book, Ulysses is bathed at the house of Alcinous. Louo
is the word several times used, and he is represented as going into the
bath, and coming out of it.
In the tenth book, in the house of Circe, the hero is again led to the
bath ; and warm water is plenteously poured on his head and shoulders,
until he is completely refreshed ; and after he was clothed and seated on
his throne, a nymph brings water for his hands. Here nipto is used
without the regimen — the word hands being understood in the use of
the verb, as Dr. Campbell observes on John ix. 7.
FIRST REPLY TO PRESIDENT BEECHER. 485
In the seventeenth book, Telemachus leads Piraeus, the messenger of
Menelaus, into his house, and they bathe before the banquet. Water
was also ministered for the washing of the hands after they were clothed
and seated. If Cowper, when he translates the passage thus, — "And
plunged his feet into a polished bath," means that only the foot-bath was
used, he is undoubtedly in error. They are represented as themselves
going into the bath, and coming out of it ; .and the word louo without a
regimen implies this. Perhaps the translator takes this way to express
their going into the bath.
In the nineteenth book, the command of Penelope with respect to
Ulysses as a beggar, which Cowper translates, " Give him the bath, my
maidens; then spread his couch," it is undoubtedly the foot-bath that is
meant. The verb is aponipsate without a regimen. "Attend him also
at the peep of day with bath and unction." This refers to the bathing
of the whole body. He was to be bathed and anointed before breakfast-
ing with Telemachns. That it was the foot-bath that was meant in the
first part of the sentence, is clear from the reply of Ulysses:
" Nor me the foot-bath pleases more ; my feet
Shall none of all thy minist'ring maidens touch,
Unless there be some ancient matron grave
Among them, who hath pangs of heart endured
Num'rous and keen as I have felt myself;
Her I refuse not. She may touch my feet."
It was actually the foot-bath that was used on this occasion, and his feet
only were washed by his nurse, for which nipto is the verb used.
Simonides, concerning women, represents one as unbathed and un-
leashed in garments, aloutos, aplutos, with characteristic reference. He
speaks of another as bathed twice and sometimes thrice every day. Here
the verb has no regimen, yet definitely refers to the whole body.
^Elian, in the beginning of the third book of his Var. Hist., speaks of
certain springs in Tempe, whose waters are good, lousamenois, to those
who are bathed in them. He speaks also, in the thirteenth book, of an
eagle snatching the slipper of Rodope the Egyptian, while she was
bathing, carrying it to Memphis, and dropping it on the bosom of
Psammitichios sitting on the judgment seat. The word louomenes is
twice used without a regimen to designate the bathing of the person.
Nicolas of Damascus tells us that the king of Babylon ordered one of
his eunuchs to bathe a certain person twice a-day. He uses the word
louo without a regimen, as definitely importing the bathing of the whole
body. He tells us also of a certain usurer, who ordered Croesus to wait
at the door, until the usurer should bathe himself. Here also the same
verb is used with reference to the whole body, without any regimen.
He speaks of the Dardani, an Ulyrian nation, as being bathed only three
times in their lives — when they are born, when they are married, and
when they die. Here the word is used without any regimen ; and
nothing can more definitely show its distinctive meaning.
Arrian, (p. 165,) giving an account of the last illness of Alexander
the Great, uses the word ten times in conformity with the distinction
I have assigned. After his debauch he bathed and slept. Again he
486 FIRST REPLY TO PRESIDENT BEECHER.
supped, drank till far in the night, and afterwards bathed, ate a little,
and slept. He was several times bathed during his fever, and usually
bathed before sacrifice. Homer's heroes sometimes wash their hands
before prayer, and before meat. Telemachus walking along the beach,
having washed his hands in the hoary sea, prayed to Minerva. Odys. ii.
Ulysses and his companions, having washed their hands, feasted on the
stag. Odys. x.
The Essenes, Josephus informs us, (p. 728,) after working for some
hours in the morning, assemble in one place, and girding themselves
with linen veils, bathe before dinner. Here we see a daily baptism by
a whole sect of the Jews. Mr. Beecher thinks a baptism after market
incredible in Jewish superstition.
Justin Martyr not only always uses the word conformably to this
distinction, but, speaking of the pagan purifications invented by the
demons in imitation of baptism, he showed that they used the washing
of the whole body as the most complete purification, p. 91.
Eusebius, speaking of Simon Magus, represents him as continuing his
hypocrisy even to the bath, meckri loutron, p. 12; and the places where
the Christians usually baptized, he calls loutra, bathing-places.
Lucian, in the dialogue of Micyllus and the Cock, uses the word louo
without a regimen for bathing in a bath. He was invited to come to a
feast, having bathed himself. He speaks also of his impatience in wait-
ing for the time of the bath, achri loutrou. This determines not only
the use of the word, but also shows that it was customary even for Gen-
tiles to bathe before dinner. The bath was a luxury, not a penance..
On these grounds, then, there can be no hesitation in maintaining a
distinctive use of the word louo. There are situations in which either
of the words may be used, because both of them are in their peculiar
meaning applicable. According to my view of the distinctive meaning
of this word, there is nothing to prevent it from being applied to the
vessels in the vestibule of ancient churches, for washing the hands of the
worshippers. These might be called either loitteres or niptcrcs, because
the hands might be either bathed or washed. I have shown that the
essential distinction has no reference to the whole and a part ; though
from circumstances the one is usually applied to a part of the body, and
the other to the whole. And that the word does not necessarily express
mode, I readily admit. This must be determined by circumstances;
though, as a matter of fact, immersion is almost always the way of bath-
ing. All I contend for from this word is, that the object to which it is
applied is covered with the water, and that when used without a regimen
in the context, it refers to the whole body. The application of this
word to baptism shows that the rite was a bathing of the whole body ;
and as immersion is the usual way of bathing, baptism must have been
an immersion, because, when it is called a bathing, the reference would
be to the common way of bathing, not to a merely possible way. I
claim, then, the evidence of all those passages in the New Testament
which by this word refer to the ordinance of baptism. I make a similar
demand with regard to the use of the word by the Fathers. Baptism,
then, is immersion, and nothing but immersion is baptism.
CHAPTER XII.
REPLY TO PRESIDENT BEECHER's ARTICLE IN THE AMERICAN BIBLICAL
REPOSITORY.
President Beecher, in an article of the American Biblical Repo-
sitory, complains loudly of the severity of my attack on his theory of the
meaning of the word baptizo. He has paraded a great number of
extracts as evidence of a bad spirit. Now, every one of these extracts
I recognise, and I make the charge of incompetence against him more
strongly than ever : but, in those extracts, I deny the existence of the
smallest degree of bad spirit. I act upon principle solemnly and deli-
berately. My design is to show my unlearned readers what account
they are to make of his discoveries in a balloon above the clouds, from a
specimen of what he has done before their own eyes. In questioning a
decision of a court of law, is it not proper to show that they who made
the decision are men without discrimination, and without accurate know-
ledge of the law? If such a case is made out, has it not the nature of
evidence? In like manner, when we ask who are our opponents, and
assert that all the illustrious scholars of all ages and countries are on our
side, our design is not wantonly to wound. There is in this fact a
species of self-evidence. If a judge is at once competent, and incontro-
vertibly disinterested, is not the greatest weight to be attached to his
decision? Now, the illustrious scholars referred to are not only disin-
terested, but they decide against their own practice. How great, then,
must be the weight of their testimony on this question !
I have charged President Beecher as deficient in discrimination, and
as employing false principles of interpretation. For proof of this I refer
to the work entitled " Baptism not Purification," sold by Mr. Burton, of
Ipswich. I shall give my readers a sample of the grounds on which I
found my charge.
He makes the words baptismos and katharismos synonymous, on the
ground that they both in a certain place refer to the same rite. This
is an error into which no philologist could fall : it shows a remarkable
deficiency in discrimination. This I have frequently exemplified. The
same error is to be found in most of the writers on that side of the
question.
He makes baptismos a word designating purification in general,
Decause it is a synonyme of the general word, katharismos ; and the
487
488 SECOND REPLY TO PRESIDENT BEECHER.
general word Icatliarismos he makes specific, as it corresponds to boptis-
?nos. I have called this legerdemain. Here, also, I might offer a pre-
mium for a purer specimen of nonsense.
That the disputed word signifies purification, he proves from Malachi
iii. 1 — 3. Does not even a child see that the prophet does not refer to
ritual purification, but to the separation of the chaff from the wheat ;
and that the prophecy could have been equally fulfilled had no ritual
ordinance of purification ever been instituted?
He makes the title of John the Baptist originate in the administra-
tion of a rite of purification, and he finds proof for this in John's being
a moral reformer. May I not offer another premium here ?
He proceeds on the principle, that every occurrence of the word must
prove its own meaning. No philologist could fall into such an error.
The meaning of no word could submit to such a test.
With respect to the testimony of Josephus, Mr. Beecher tells us, that
" There was nothing to cause Josephus to think of the mode, or to
attach any importance to it." This observation assumes, as a principle,
that Josephus had a share in giving this rite its name. Can anything be
more unlike a philologist? Can any observation be more destitute of com-
mon sense? Josephus speaks of the rite by the name already given to it.
As a proof that the disputed word is often used in the sense for which
he contends, he alleges a passage in which the word is not used at all.
Is this philology ? Must this be dignified as criticism ? Can the author
possess that discrimination which is necessary to determine such a
question?
This is but a small specimen of the author's qualifications as a critic,
yet it clearly manifests his incompetency.
Nothing alleged by Mr. Beecher at all affects my view of the testi-
mony of the Fathers on this subject. I still equally admit that testimony
in a proper view of the subject. It is their testimony as it regards the
meaning of the word at the time of the institution or commencement of
the rite. I have expressly mentioned this : " I give my opponents the
whole range of Greek literature till the institution of the ordinance of
baptism." It is only as far as the Fathers can testify as to this fact, that
they are competent witnesses. They might also testify to a secondary
meaning without at all affecting this subject. I have said, " I deny a
secondary meaning, not because it would disprove immersion, but
because it wants the sanction of use." Notwithstanding all the exam-
ples alleged by Mr. Beecher, I am still of the same opinion. But,
though a secondary meaning were fully proved, it would not in the
smallest degree affect the question. Mr. Beecher's confidence is an
additional proof of his want of discrimination. He ought to perceive
that the Fathers might prove a secondary meaning, while, at the same
time, they prove that, in reference to the original institution, the word
is used in its primary meaning.
That the Fathers understood the word as immersion in reference to
the institution of baptism, no scholar ever questioned. To prove this
at any length would be totally unsuitable to my present work ; but I
shall submit two or three arguments that I hesitate not to say will
SECOND REPLY TO PRESIDENT BEECHER. 489
produce conviction on the mind of every unprejudiced reader. I shall
rather suggest them than urge them.
1. The Fathers not only practised immersion, but considered it essen-
tial except in cases of necessity. This could not have been the case, if
they considered any purification to fulfil the meaning of the word.
2. The question about the validity of Novatian's perfusion never
could have originated, had they considered that any purification was a
fulfilment of the meaning of the word. On that supposition, how could
any object to perfusion ?
3. Even when writing on the subject of Novatian's perfusion, and
defending the validity of it, Cyprian considers it not as baptism pro-
perly, but as a valid substitute for baptism.
4. Cyprian, even in the letter in which he defends the validity of
perfusion as a substitute for baptism in cases of necessity, calls it an
abridgement or compend of the ordinance.
5. In the same letter Cyprian uses the word baptizo in the sense of
immersion, in reference to the ordinance, in contradistinction to perfusion.
He argues the validity of perfusion from the fact that the persons who
were perfused in their sickness, were never afterwards baptized, or
immersed, which they must have been had not perfusion been accounted
valid in such cases. If, as he reasons, the grace usually conferred by the
ordinance has not been received by perfusion, let them be baptized or
immersed when they recover : but as this is not the custom of the
church, why do they object? No evidence can be more conclusive than
this. This Father uses the word in its proper sense of immerse, in
reference to the ordinance.
6. Cyprian calls perfusion the ecclesiastical baptism, as distinguished
from baptism in the proper sense of the term. The persons perfused in
their beds on account of sickness were not supposed to be properly bap-
tized ; but they received the ecclesiastical baptism — that is, what the
church, in such cases, admitted as a valid substitute for baptism. This
fact is conclusive, and will afford an answer to all the passages referred
to by President Beecher to prove a secondary meaning in the use of the
word among the Fathers. It was not a secondary meaning, because it
never went into general use ; but it is called a baptism, because it
served the same purpose. It would not in the smallest degree affect
the subject in question, had the word really received such a secondary
meaning ; but no such secondary meaning is in proof from the alleged
examples.
7. Tertullian understood the word in reference to the ordinance as
signifying immersion. He translates it by tingo. Mr. Beecher thinks
he has silenced this testimony, by translating the word by purify. But
the disproof of this is as certain as it is short. What Tertullian desig-
nates by tingo, he designates by mergito. And if he says ter mergitamur,
he says, also, ter tingimur, — We are thrice dipped. It was only one puri-
fication, though it was performed by three immersions. Mr. Beecher,
then, cannot, by all his torture, force tingo.
8. It appears to me self-evident that Christ would not appoint a rite,
without appointing the way of its observance.
62
490 SECOND REPLY TO PRESIDENT BEECHER.
9. If the word signifies to purify, and if all may purify as they please,
then, all the mummery of superstition is a fulfilment of Christ's com-
mand in the performance of the ordinance.
10. If the word denotes purification in general, then we may purify
with fire, or sulphur, or salt, or oil, or anything we please, and water
will not be essential. We may dispense with water as well as the mode.
11. If the water is known to be essential from the practice recorded
in Scripture, this will not serve Mr. Beecher. He cannot reason on this
principle. According to his principle, the first Christians might choose
water in their purification ; but that others were not bound to their
example.
12. The Greek translation of the Old Testament and Josephus have
innumerable occasions to use the words designating the rites of purifica-
tion. I have them all drawn out, though they cannot be inserted on
this occasion. In not one of them is baptizo used for purification. Can
anything more fully show that the word had not such a signification 1
Justin Martyr not only describes the performance of the rite as an
immersion, but he speaks of it in a way that shows he considered the
mode as emblematical, and, therefore, essential to the rite in its proper
import. When he says, that in this rite they are born again, the refer-
ence, without doubt, is to their being in water and coming out of the
water. Besides, he says, that it is iti the water they have the remission
of sins. This shows that to be in the water, and to come out of it, is
the true meaning of the rite. He tells us that the demons, hearing of
this washing from the prophet Isaiah, induced their worshippers to
imitate it; in the first step by sprinkling, and in the end using a complete
washing of the body. In the first step they imitated it as a purification
by water : in the last they imitated it not only in the water, but in the man-
ner of using the water. In another place he speaks of baptism as cleansing
the flesh and the body only : this shows that the water was applied to
the body in general. He speaks of it, also, as referring to cisterns, or
pits, as trenches that are dug. It must, then, have been an immersion.
He sometimes, also, speaks of circumcision as a baptism, or agreeing in
the emblem, though altogether different in the things and in the words
that designate them. Let President Beecher study this, and it will show
how the Fathers can call various things by the name of baptism, without
importing that they are included in the meaning of the word. All his
examples may be solved by this single fact. In like manner Justin
speaks of Christians as having the spiritual circumcision, of which Greeks
and those like him were partakers, though they had nothing that literally
resembled what was imported by the word. Justin speaks, also, of certain
washings prescribed by Moses as being baptisms. Now purification in
genera] would not suit this, for every purification would not fulfil the
injunction. But the passage in which he brings the literal and the figura-
tive applications of the word to bear on each other, puts Justin's testimony
on this subject beyond controvery. He considers the prophet's bringing
up the immersed head of the axe out of Jordan, by casting in a piece
of wood, as corresponding to men immersed in the greatest sins, yet
SECOND REPLY TO PRESIDENT BEECHER. 491
brought out by the crucifixion of Christ and the purification of water
What can be more decisive than this? We are supposed to be baptized
in the most grievous sins. What can baptism, then, be but immersion ?
Are we purified by sin ? We, like the head of the axe, are immersed
in sin : as the axe was brought up by the wood cast into the river, so we
are brought up and purified by the baptism or sufferings of Christ.
Besides, when Justin speaks of purification, he never employs any word
that signifies baptism. If the word had this signification in his time,
why did he sometimes use it in that sense?
In like manner, from a figurative application of the word by Origen,
it is decisively evident that he understood it as meaning immerse. He
speaks of persons totally given up to sin, as being entirely immersed or
sunk down under wickedness.
From a figurative application of the word by Clemens Alexandrinus,
it is evident that he understood it as literally signifying immersion. He
speaks of persons baptized by drunkenness into sleep. All language
must recognise this figure : it is an immersion or burial in sleep. It is
utterly impossible that purification should be the ground of this figure.
Gregory Thaumaturgus speaks of drawing baptized persons up as fish
are drawn out of water by a line. Now, when a figure can be definitely
ascertained as to its secondary object, it is the most unexceptionable
way of ascertaining the literal meaning of a word.
That Tertullian understood immersion to be part of the nature of the
rite, is evident from his saying, that " in baptism we die through a like-
ness." There is no death in purification except when it is performed
by immersion.
Chrysostom most definitely shows that he attached this meaning to the
word by coupling it with the word sink, and making the action desig-
nated by both an emblem of burial and resurrection. " To be baptized
and to sink down," says he, " then to rise, is a symbol of the going down
into the grave, and of the coming up from it." Here he not only couples
baptizing with sinking doton, but makes both words, as to the ordinance
of baptism, designate an idea which is an emblem of going down into
the grave. He not only uses the word in the sense of immersion, but
in that sense he applies it to the ordinance of baptism. No evidence
can be more decisive than this. Even had the word obtained a se-
condary meaning by use, it is in its primary that the Fathers apply it to
baptism; but, though the Fathers called many things baptism, the word
never obtained a secondary meaning. Besides, Chrysostom expressly
expounds Rom. vi. as asserting an emblem of burial and resurrection in
baptism. This not only proves that immersion was the usual practice at
the time, but that they considered this as the appointed mode of the rite.
The three immersions used by the ancients in the performance of the
rite are called tria baptismata, three baptisms, that is, three immersions, for
it could not be three purifications : it was only one purification. I am
well aware that the three immersions may be called also one baptism.
My philosophy can account for this. When they are said to be three
baptisms, the word is used in reference to the act of immersion ; when
492 SECOND REPLY TO PRESIDENT BEECHER.
they are called one baptism, the word is used in reference to the rite in its
appropriated sense. The three immersions are, in the estimation of those
who used them, only one rite, which was designated by the name baptism.
That Cyprian, and those concerned in the case of Novatian, understood
the word as signifying immersion, is clear to demonstration, from the fact
that the justification of perfusion was not rested on the meaning of the
word, but on other grounds. Had the word signified purification without
reference to mode, would they not have appealed to the meaning of the
word? Would Cyprian have employed so much trifling in vindicating
the sufficiency of perfusion, if he could have found a complete vindica-
tion in the meaning of the word, and in the essential nature of the ordi-
nance? Jerome also translated the word in the commission by intingo,
to dip into, which shows that in his time the Greek word was understood
to signify immersion.
Mr. B does not understand my canon as to impossibility. He says,
that my doctrine is " that we cannot admit a secondary sense unless we
can prove that the primary sense is impossible." He leaves out an essen-
tial part of my canon. Impossibility is required only when a secondary
meaning is not in proof. If in any occurrence in the language a second-
ary meaning is in proof, impossibility of primary meaning is not essential
to warrant the application of a secondary meaning. I have again and
again explained this doctrine.
He complains that I assume universal use, though all the occurrences
of the word are not produced. On this ground, universal use could not
be assumed with respect to any word, for all the instances in which any
word has been used can never be produced. It is quite enough, that
after all the researches of all writers on both sides of the question since
the birth of the controversy, a refractory instance, till the time of the
institution, cannot be produced.
The passages which he quotes from the Fathers are all explicable on
the principle which I have pointed out in the sentence from Cyprian ;
but, were it true, which it is not, that the word in process of use, after the
institution of the ordinance, received a secondary meaning, it has no
bearing on this subject ; it does not at all stand in my way.
The passages from Clemens Alexandrinus in which the word occurs,
are entirely misunderstood. Where did the President learn that koite is
a dinner couch? It is a bed for sleeping on. It is not, " this was the
custom of the Jews that they often should be baptized upon their beds."
This passage refers to the nightly pollutions after which bathing was
prescribed by the law of Moses. They were immersed " on account of
the bed;" that is, pollution contracted there.
The. instance from Nicephorus is perfectly explicable from the passage
in Cyprian's letters. Cyprian, while he uses the word baptizo for im-
7nerse, calls the perfusion of Novatian an ecclesiastical baptism, because
it was used by the church as conveying the same grace with baptism.
Indeed, had the custom of immersion been universally changed into any
other mode, the rite would still have continued to be called immersion.
This, which the President thinks must prove so refractory to me, has not
the smallest difficulty ; it is quite in accordance with my doctrine.
SECOND REPLY TO PRESIDENT BEECHER. 493
Mr. Beecher represents the preposition ek as " a preposition at war
with the idea of immerse." This is an error that no philologist could
hold. Any person who has ever passed the threshold of the temple of
philology must know that such combinations of prepositions, both in
composition and in syntax, are quite common. Prepositions the very
reverse of each other, are often combined and prefixed to the same word.
I cannot pursue this subject here : I shall merely suggest it to literary
men. Even apobapto itself is used in the same way in the Septuagint ;
and though it should be supposed to mean wet or moisten, still the result
is the same. Even wetting or moistening implies that the wetting or
moistening is effected while the object is in union with the wetting or
moistening substance. Yet from, or apo, signifies separation, not union.
Had I no other evidence that the President, however great a man he
may be in other respects, is not a philologist, I could take his measure
from this single observation. I will make this plain even to my most
unlearned readers. Dr. Miller, I think, somewhere in his treatise,
speaks of dipping up a bucket of water. Let a foreigner interpret this
on the principle of President Beecher. Up, says the critic, signifies
ascension ; dipping, then, cannot denote immersing, for this implies
sinking. The preposition is at war with immerse as the meaning of the
word dip. Dip must, then, signify to raise, or draw, or lift — not to
immerse ; and this critic would know English as the President knows
Greek. All languages must admit such combinations as President
Beecher supposes to be in this case incongruous.
The examples produced by Mr. Beecher prove that louo sometimes
applied to other things besides animal bodies ; but none of them prove
that the thing so washed was not covered with the water. This is all
we want : the water might be applied by sprinkling, or by pouring, or
in any way. Indeed it would be enough for us if this was its usual
signification. Why should it on this subject be supposed to assume a
rare meaning?
With respect to the baptism of the Spirit, after admitting my assertion
that metaphor may indulge itself wherever it finds resemblance, he says,
" But my objection is, that there is no resemblance between the operations
of the Holy Spirit and immersion." Is not the resemblance in the
effects?
With respect to my illustrations, " steeping the senses in forgetful-
ness," " steeping the soul in the milk of human nature," " be not
drunk with wine, but be filled with the Spirit," he says, — " How, I ask,
are the words to steep, to be drunk, and to fill, verbs denoting the mode
of an action, and that alone? or are they words denoting an effect?"
This is a strange observation for a man of letters. It is no matter what
the verbs signify if they can be figuratively applied with regard to their
effects. Words can be used figuratively where the resemblance is not
in their literal signification, but in their effects. Besides, would any
philologist — would any intelligent child say, that steep denotes an effect ?
Steep denotes a certain action which has a certain effect.
The metaphysical nonsense, for the exceeding of which I offered a
premium, Mr. Beecher ascribes to several of the Fathers. I find nothing
494 SECOND REPLY TO PRESIDENT BEECHER.
like it in his quotations; and notwithstanding the modesty of the Presi-
dent, I must still think that the union of meanings running into one
another is all his own.
He complains that I unjustly represent him as founding on probability
independently of the meaning of the word. I reiterate the charge. Does
he not perceive that by the meaning of the word I understand a previ-
ously ascertained meaning? To this he does not even pretend. I found
all on meaning previously ascertained : this is a fundamental difference
between him and me.
The characteristic meaning of the word klizo is exactly what I have
represented ; and all the examples accord with this : but the example to
which he refers has no bearing on the subject. When he alleges proof
that persons may go to a river for other purposes than the immersion of
the whole body, he manifests a want of discrimination. Our argument
is grounded on the fact that the going to the water was for the purpose
of baptism. When our opponents triumph, and tell us that if our argu-
ment is conclusive, Philip was baptized as well as the eunuch, their
triumph is in their want of discrimination.
In defending the combination of his probabilities, he makes a distinc-
tion as to the nature of the subjects ; but, on all subjects, nothing is
nothing; and if I have proved that the probabilities are nothing separately,
nothing must they be in combination. Besides, the probability that,
independently of testimony, a thing was done in a certain way, is a very
different thing from the probability that a word has a certain meaning.
That A killed B may be very probable from many circumstances ; but
the moment A proves an alibi, or that it is proved that C is guilty of
the murder, all the previous probabilities are of no account.
After all his complaints about a bad spirit, it is amusing to consider
the gross manifestations which he affords of this himself. In all I have
ever written I defy my adversaries to point out one particle of a bad
spirit. My severity respects the execution of the work before me, and
my censures are preceded by proofs of the thing condemned. Justice to
truth demands the exposure. But what spirit is indicated by such
expressions as " the guise of zeal for the glory of God?" " Being deter-
mined not to admit the truth, he did the only thing that remained, first
to misrepresent, and then to deny it?" If this is not a bad spirit, what
will indicate a bad spirit? But in the field of battle I never murmur.
I never pronounce on the motives of my opponents ; but I always, as a
matter of duty, measure their talents. This they are pleased to call a
bad spirit, while they have poured out whole torrents of the most virulent
abuse : this never moves me, — I write for eternity.
I had charged President Beecher with using a Unitarian canon. How
does he repel the charge? He tells me that a good canon is not the
worse for being employed by Unitarians. I redouble the charge. A
Unitarian canon is not a sound canon employed by Unitarians as well
as others. A Unitarian canon is one which, if admitted, will prove
Unitarianism. What a want of discrimination is in this defence ! A
canon that is sound ought to be used by all. A Unitarian canon cannot
be sound, unless Unitarianism is true.
SECOND REPLY TO PRESIDENT BEECHER. 495
To enable my readers to estimate the qualifications of my antagonist
as a controversialist, I shall slightly notice the several particulars which
he states in recommendation of his view of the meaning of the word in
dispute. To judge on this matter requires nothing but a sound intellect
and an unprejudiced mind. He tells us, for instance, that to adopt his
conclusions " takes nothing from any one but the right to think others
wrong," &.c. Now was there ever a purer specimen of absurdity than
this ? Were it as true as it is false, it could not take from any man the
right to think another wrong. Must not every one who thinks his own
view on any subject right, think all others wrong who differ from him ?
Does not the writer think that I am wrong ?
Six special advantages, as recommendations of this view, are enume-
rated by the writer. "1. It is more adapted to the varying conditions
of men, and to all change of climate, times, seasons, and health." Im-
mersion is not injurious to health in any climate : but should the physi-
cian, in any case, recommend the warm bath, there is nothing to prevent
it. If the believer is on a sick bed, or death bed, the rite is not a duty.
Clinical perfusion could never have been introduced as a substitute for
baptism, had not Puseyism been previously introduced. Is there as much
danger in immersion as there was in circumcision? Had the matter
been left to himself, I doubt not but the ingenuity of Abraham would
have found that shaving the head would have been better adapted to the
comfort of himself and his posterity.
But it is perfect absurdity to talk of recommendations on one side or
the other, on such a matter. Whatever God has appointed must be
observed. Had God appointed two modes, giving us a discretionary
power to observe which of them should be most pleasing to us, we might
make a choice : but whatever recommendations a thing may have to us,
God may have good reason for appointing a different.
" 2. It is more accordant," says the writer, " with the liberal and en-
larged spirit of Christianity, as a religion of freedom, designed for all
countries and all times."
Does the writer mean that the prescription of mode, as emblematical
in a Christian rite, is inconsistent with the practice of religion ? Another
may as well say, that the prescription of water, or of wine, or of any-
thing else, is equally inconsistent with Christianity. What a notion this
writer must have of religious freedom !
" 3. It better agrees," says the author, " with our ideas of what is
reasonable and fit." And will the writer take on him to say that it is
not reasonable and fit in God to appoint immersion as the mode of this
ordinance, as an emblem of the burial of Christ? If this is not blas-
phemous, I know not what blasphemy is.
"4. It offers," says the writer, " no temptations to formalism, nor does
it tend to foster arrogance and exclusion." Here is the very spirit of
philosophy. How does immersion, or any other mode appointed by God,
offer a temptation to formalism ? Is it formalism to observe a mode
which by the very supposition is appointed by God? Is it formalism to
observe Divine forms? As to arrogance, is it arrogant to say that
immersion is the only mode, if it is the meaning of the word ? As to
496 SECOND REPLY TO PRESIDENT BEECHER.
exclusion, the meaning of the word is not concerned in settling the
question of church fellowship.
" 5. It is perfectly adequate," says the author, " to harmonise the
church." What a recommendation ! Is it not obvious to every human
intellect, that any view of the meaning of the word, if it is universally
received, is equally calculated to effect harmony? The advocates of
pouring, of sprinkling, of immersing, &,c. &-c, may all equally allege
this recommendation. Even if a man should say that the word signifies
to tattoo, he may say that, if all parties receive this meaning, it would
harmonise the church. Was ever such a specimen of reasoning com-
mitted to the types ?
" 6. It is susceptible," says the author, " of any necessary degree of
proof." This confounds evidence with recommendation. If it is capable
of proof, it should be received without any recommendation. If it is not
proved, no recommendation can entitle it to reception.
Now I call the attention of my plain, unlettered readers to this brief
specimen of my antagonist's reasoning powers, that they may judge what
confidence they are to place in his criticism. If in matters of common
sense he stumbles at every step, can he be trusted in matters of the most
profound metaphysics? My antagonist may be a very ingenious man,
and a very pious man, and in many respects a very clever man, but he
has not a head for the philosophy of language : and I say this with as
little bad feeling as I say that the three angles of every triangle are equal
to two right angles.
PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE QUOTED OR REFERRED TO.
Chap. Ver:
GENESIS
i. 26 .
rii.I . .
xv. 5 . .
xvii. 5 . .
xvii. 13, 23
xxiv. 16 . .
EXODUS
xii. 22 .
sii. 43 .
six. 4 . .
xxix. 4 . .
xxix. 45
xxx. 18—20
xxx. 19
xxxii. 11
xxxiv. 3 — 8
Page
. 147
. 218
. 218
. 219
. 225
. 131
30, 320
. 228
. 478
325, 443
221
443
325
221
421
LEVITICUS.
i.9 326
iv. 6 30
iv. 17 . 30, 96, 317
ix.9 30
xi.32 . 30,71,327
xiv. 6 30
xiv. 16 . 31, 96, 317
xxv. 39—46 . . .227
xxvi. 44 .... 221
NUMBERS
viii. 5
viii. 7
', xix. 17
xix. 18
xix. 19
xix. 20
xxv. 13
xxxi. 23
. . 325
. . 405
.62,405
. 31,66
. . 66
. . 325
. . 219
327, 444
DEUTERONOMY,
xiv. 21 .... 227
. 326
xxii. 9
xxiii. 20
xxxii. 42
xxxiii. 24
. . 227
.81,402
.31,402
JOSHUA.
iii. 15 . . ,
JUDGES.
vij. 5
31
131
Chap. Ver.
RUTH.
ii. 14
Page
31
1 SAMUEL.
xiv
27 ... .
31
XV
4 . . . .
1 KINGS.
339
iv
7 . . . .
181
V
9 . . . .
181
viii
13 ... .
222
IX
3 . . . .
222
XIV
10, &c. . .
181
XV11
5 . . . .
339
XV111
33 ... .
2 KINGS.
394
V.
10,14 . . .
272
V.
14 . . .59,313
VI
4 ....
131
VU1
15 ... .
32
2 CHRONICLES
iv
6 . . . .
444
EZRA.
x. 3, 44 . . . 208
NEHEMIAH.
xiii.23,24 . . .208
JOB.
ix. 31
PSALMS
xiv. 2 . .
lxviii. 23 . .
Ixix. 1,2, 14
lxxvii. . . .
cxxxiii. 2 . .
32,291
112
32
87
413
116
ISAIAH,
i. 16 . . . . 469
iii. 14 .... 222
xxi. 4 . . 86, 317
JEREMIAH,
xxx. 31 .... 216
xxxi. 33 . . . .214
xxxv. 2— 11 . . .193
63
Chap. Ver.
EZEKIEL.
xxiii. 15 . . .
xxxii. 14 . . .
Page
. 54
. .87
DANIEL,
iv. 30 . . .
v.21 . . .
MALACHI.
iii. 1—3 . . .
36
35
488
MATTHEW.
x.
xii.
xiv.
xv.
xviii.
xix.
xx.
xx.
xxiv.
xxvi,
xxvi.
xxvi.
xx viii.
xxviii,
1 .
5,6
6 .
6—13
11
16
3 .
5 .
6 .
16
40
3 .
6 .
1 .
13—15
21
22
15
12
23
39
18
19
. 331
. 178
. 373
. 126
. 121
. 129
. 199
. 340
. 76
. 295
. 150
. 294
. 236
. 200
. 198
. 139
87,117
. 340
148, 164
27
118
179
169
MARK.
i.4
i.5
i.9
vii. 3
vii. 4
x.15
x.37
xiv. 20
xvi. 16
. . 175,279
126,297,302
. . 297,373
. . 321,406
67,71,76,397
419,448,450
.... 200
.... 87
.... 32
. . 173,254
LUKE.
iii. 16
vi. 29
292
358
497
498 PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE QUOTED OR REFERRED TO.
Chap. Ver. Page
ix. 61 .... 299
xi. 37 .... 323
xi.38 . . 67, 406,
448, 450.
xii.50 .... 118
xiii.4 340
xvi. 24 .... 32
xix.9 196
xxi. 37 .... 299
JOHN,
i. 23, 28 . . . 126
ii. 6 323
iii 110
iii. 3 469
iii. 5 . . . 164,211,
476, 479.
iii. 23 . 141,344,476
iii. 25, 26 . 178, 350,
429, 434.
iv. 1—3 . . 178, 354
iv. 2 .
iv. 14
iv.53
vi. 42
vii. 41, 42
viii. 20
ix.7 .
x.23
x.40
xi.32
xii. 3 .
xiii. 26
xx. 22
202
106
183
72
73
340
484
340
126
300
148
32
110
ACTS.
i. 5 292
i.5— 8 .... 110
ii. 1 436
ii. 2 110
ii. 16— 39 . . .112
i ii. 17 .... 407
ii. 38 . . 179, 203, 354
viii. 12 .... 180
viii. 12, 13. 16 . . 354
viii. 36 .... 128
viii. 38, 39 . 129, 141,
355.
viii. 39 .... 340
viii. 40
ix. 18
x. 16
x.40
x. 46
x. 47, 48
301
356
192
359
118
358
xi. 15— 17 . 118,407
Chap. Ver.
xi. 16
xv. 9 .
xvi. 15
xviii. 8 .
xviii. 21
xix.
xix. 1 .
xix. 1—6
xix. 4 — 7
xx. 7 .
xxi. 13
xxii. 16
xxiii. 11
age
. . 292
. . 478
. . 359
182, 361
. . 301
. . 420
. . 176
. . 372
. . 362
. . 232
. . 301
180, 212,
356, 461.
. . . 301
ROMANS.
ii.28 .... 222
iii. 1,2. . . .230
iv. 11 . . 214, 224
vi. 1 . . . 370, 383,
411, 420.
vi. 3 . . 142, &c. 423
vi. 3— 5 ... 212
vi. 4 . . . 145, 475
ix. 6 222
x. 4 220
1 CORINTHIANS.
i. 1
192
361
232
. 165,212,478
•14 . . . 207
119, 412
i. 13—17 .
ii. 23
vi. 11
vii. 12—
x.l . .
x. 2 421
xii. 13 . . 117,212
xiv.40 . . . .247
xv. 1 150
xv. 29 . . 163,212
xvi. 15 .... 193
GALATIANS.
iii. 7—9 .... 218
iii. 8 220
iii. 13, 14, 26-29. 206
iii. 27 . . . . 213
iv. 19 .... 478
v. 2— 6,27 . .213
EPHESIANS.
i. 13 . . • . 235
iv.5 212
iv. 30 .... 235
v.26 .165,212,478
vi. 1 187
COLOSSIANS.
Chap. Ver. Page
ii. 11, 12 ... 228
ii. 12 144, 145, 157,
212,387,411,
423,476.
iii. 20 .... 187
1 TIMOTHY
iii. 4 182
TITUS,
iii. 5 . . . 165,211
HEBREWS,
viii. 10, 11 . . .216
ix. 9 324
ix. 10 . 76, 368. 404,
419,421,442.
ix. 19 .... 368
ix. 22 .... 434
x.22 . 33,164,212,
479.
1 PETER,
i. 22 .... 479
i. 23 .... 212
iii. 20,21 . 212, 3S8,
412,462,476,
478.
REVELATION
i. 5 47S
xix. 13 .... 32
Chaldee Version *. . 54
Dutch Testament . 22
German Testament . 22
Hebrew Version . . 54
Icelandic Testament 22
Saxon Testament . 22
Septuagint 34, 35, 54, 59,
63, 288, 312, 493.
Syriac Version . 37, 320
APOCRYPHA.
Chap. Ver; Page
"Tobit vi. 2 . . . .444
Judith xii. 7 . 77, 273
Ecclesiasticus xxxi. 25,320
xxxiv. 25 . . . 454
xxxiv. 30 . . 66, 396
2 Maccabees i. 21 . 32
xiv. 21 .... 326
AUTHORS QUOTED OR REFERRED TO.
.Elian. 20, 25,45, 4S5.
jEsop, 62, 409.
jEschylus, 45. m
Alexander Aphroditus, 297.
Anacreon, 30.
Aratus, 29.
Aristophanes, 27, 28, 33, 47, 51.
Aristotle, 21, 25, 28, 29, 47, 53, 284.
Arrian, 44, 138, 451, 485.
Athenaeus, 28.
Beecher, President, 274, &c. 429, &c.
Bickersteth, Mr. 23S, &c.
Bickersteth, Friend of Mr. 447.
Bloomfield, Mr. 449.
Booth, Mr. 50, 108.
Bruce, Mr. 76.
Callimachus, 34.
Campbell, Dr. 68, 69, 122, 134, 164, 3S4.
Campbell, Dr. George, 420. m
Campbell, Dr. of Aberdeen, 4S0, 481, 483,
484.
Charlotte Elizabeth, 456.
Chrysostom, 438, 471, 491.
Clemens Alexandrinus, 80, 470, 491, 492.
Congregational Magazine, 281, &c.
Cowper, 29, 78, 109, 291, 300, 310, 311,
338, 339, 360, 483, 484, 485.
Cox, Dr. 34, 36, 37, 53, 54, 150.
Ctesias, 482.
Cyprian, 393, 417, 489, 492.
Didvmus, 30.
Dio, 65.
Diodorus Siculus, 5S, 65.
Dionysius, 59, 139.
Dionysius of Halicarnassus, 27.
Dioscorides, 51.
Dvvight, Dr. 175, 215.
Euripides, 28, 203.
Eusebius, 299, 393, 486.
Ewing, Mr. 34, 36, 53, 54, 69, 71, &c. 87,
181.
Ewing-s, Mr. (Appendix) 25, 28, 40, 61, 62,
135, 137, &c.
Fuller, Mr. 309.
Gale, Dr. 19, 21, &c. to 71, 284.
Gazette de France 387.
Gibbon, 167.
Goldsmith, 167.
Gotch, Mr. 276.
Greenfield, Mr. 278.
Gregory Thaumaturgus, 86,491.
Haldane, Mr. 225, 227, 230.
Hall, Mr. 417, &c.
Hallett, Mr. 199.
Hamilton, Rev. W. T. 416.
Hammond, Mr. 62.
Harpocratian, 28.
Hawkins, Dr. 16.
Heliodorus, 62, 85.
Henderson, Dr. 263, &c.
Heraclides, 20, 482.
Heraclides Ponticus, 59.
Herodotus, 29, 30, 34, 149, 337, 339, 482.
Hesiod, 4S1.
Hippocrates, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 51, 64,
460, 482, 483.
Homer, 29, 48, 59, 61, 77, 78, 143, 149,
300, 310, 311, 338, 339, 341, 360, 483,
4S4, 485, 486.
Hooker, 2, 12.
Innes, Mr. 224, 225.
Jamblichus, 26.
Jerome, 292, 492.
Johnson, Dr. 2, 9, 56, 245.
Josephus, 62, 63, 64, 84, 97, 98, 149, 263,
287, 288, 289, 337, 347, 440, 486, 488.
Justin Martyr, 326, 409, 410, 417, 444, 463
469,470,471,486,490.
King, Lord Chancellor, 4.
Lactantius, 80.
Libanius, 85.
Lightfoot, 68.
Livy, 84.
Locke, 138.
Londonderry Sentinel, 268.
Lucian, 49, 58, 285, 486
Lycophron, 27.
Macknight, 324.
Marcus Antoninus Pius, 52.
Martial, 81.
Matthias, 299, 300, 301, 302.
Miller, Dr. 364, &c. 406, 410, 493.
Milton, 47, 92, 114.
Moschus, 25, 149.
Munro, Mr. 421, &c.
Newman, Dr. 23.
Nicolas of Damascus, 45, 485.
Novatian, 489, 492.
499
500
AUTHORS QUOTED OR REFERRED TO.
Origen, 491.
Owen, Dr. 50.
Parkhurst, 57, 68.
Pastoral Annals, 269.
Petavius, 245.
Pindar, 49.
Phavorinus, 33, 53.
Plato, 53, 158.
Pliny, 54.
Plutarch, 52, 58, 61, 62, 82.
Pococke, Dr. 67.
Pollux, 52, 53, 68.
Polybius, 57, 65.
Porphyry, 58, 65, 403.
Porson, Professor, 23.
Pseudo-Didymus, 59.
Robinson, Mr. 22, 72.
Rosenmuller, 450.
Scapula, 49, 51.
Schelhornius, 86.
Schleusner, 317, 340, 343.
Scott, Sir Walter, 390.
Seneca, 53.
Shakspeare, 81.
Simonides, 485.
Sophocles, 27, 49.
Stephens, 53.
Strabo, 58, 284.
Stuart, Professor, 324, 409.
Suidas, 26, 33.
Tertullian, 19, 55, 292, 299, 332, 489,491.
Themistius, 59.
Theocritus, 24, 27.
Thorn, Mr. 427.
Thucydides, 137.
Turretine, 61.
Virgil, 38, 39, 47, 77, 80, 108.
Vossius, 61.
Wall, Dr. 30, 33, 66.
Wardlaw, Dr. 72, 77, 120, 132, 134,
155, &c. 181.
Wetstein, 68.
Whately, Archbishop, (throughout Chap. I.)
Whiston's Josephus, 77.
Whitecross, Mr. 456, 458.
Williams, Dr. 217.
Wiseman, Dr. 311, 437.
Wolffe, Dr. 273.
Xenophon, 49, 300, 339.
Zimmerman 2.
CRITICAL NOTICES OF CARSON ON BAPTISM, IN
ENGLAND.
Rev. John Foster, (Author of the Essay on Popular Ignorance, Decision of Charac-
ter, &c.) " I am pleased that the work is to be reprinted with the proposed corrections
and additions. No doubt many of our ministers will make an effort to obtain subscrip-
tions. I have mentioned it here to Dr. , who gives his name for a copy. I add
my name of course."
A. K. Miller, Esq. " It appears to me that the friends of evangelical religion at
large, are deeply indebted to him, how tardy soever they may be in making the ac-
knowledgment. Other men of far inferior calibre have had their honours heaped upon
them ; but do I speak more than the words of truth and soberness, when I say that
here is a man who has advanced every subject on which he has written, and who in
some respects is in advance of the age in which he lives — here is a man, a mere shred
of whose capital has made some men of small means great, and some really great men,
greater still — himself all the while more unassuming than his fellows. Among his ex-
cellencies I have always rated high his impartiality and singleness of purpose. One is
never in doubt that his object is truth, and that his determination is to follow evidence
whithersoever it leads, untrammelled by system or sect. The freedom from bias and
independent honesty in argument ever evinced by this writer, are qualities which we
have greatly to desiderate in many controversialists of the present day. Though I am
not a member of a Baptist church, yet I am anxious to encourage any work proceeding
from the pen of Dr. Carson, distinguished as he is by the highest talent, and exhibiting
as he ever does, the most perfect candour. I am happy to learn that the subscribers
are so numerous, and request you will put down my name for five copies."
Rev. E. Hall, A. M. " I refer to Carson, because his research has made this field
his own on the Baptist side of the question ; because he is undoubtedly a very learned
and able man, — the chief, indeed, on the Baptist side in this part of the field of con-
troversy."
Rev. B. H. Draper, LL.D. " Let those who think that the solemn immersion of
believers in water is not baptism, answer, if they can, fairly, and without evasion,
the learned, candid, and decisive work of Mr. Carson."
Congregational Magazine. " If what Mr. Carson terms axioms are indeed such,
the matter is for ever set at rest ; and except prejudice or an obstinate determination to
reject the obvious dictates of the Spirit continues to operate, the whole Christian world
must forthwith embrace the principles of anti-pcedobaptism."
Presbyterian Review. " We have no fault to find with Mr. Carson's axioms."
501
502 CRITICAL NOTICES OF CARSON ON BAPTISM.
Eclectic Review. "It is quite evident that they," (referring to two of Dr. C.'s
works,) " are the production of a writer long habituated to deep and searching thought,
and possessing a great command of language." And while the Review states that
Dr. Carson " touches unquestionably with a vigorous and masterly hand a great variety
of topics ;" it also attests " the great simplicity, judiciousness, and piety," with which
they are treated."
Scotsman. " Dr. Carson has long been well known, not only in this country, but in
Great Britain and America, as a first-rate scholar, a sound philosopher, an irresistible
reasoner, and a profound theologian. ***** jjis works shall be his monument
— a monument of diversified and transcendent genius, of imperishable greatness ;
evincing to posterity, that with the strictest propriety, he has been designated one of
the first biblical critics of the nineteenth century.'
Scottish Guardian. " As a profound and accurate thinker, an able metaphysician,
a close reasoner, a deep theologian, Dr. Carson can stand the ground against any
rivalship."
Orthodox Presbyterian. " On matters of church order it is well known we differ
from him ; but as a scholar we honour him, as a Christian brother we embrace him. In
knowledge of the philosophy of language he is far in advance of the present age ;
and with respect to metaphysical acuteness and powers of reasoning, he has been
called ' the Jonathan Edwards of the nineteenth century.' His character as a philoso-
phic theologian and a profound original independent thinker, stands in the very highest
rank ; and he was only justly designatea, when called one of the most acute philoso-
phic reasoners of the present age."
Christian Freeman. " The Rev. Alexander Carson, one of the first biblical critics
of the age. The great and almost singular excellencies of this most extraordinary man
are his clear philosophical conceptions, and his fearless philosophical spirit. Even the
German exegetical writers are only scholars : the true critic is made up of the scholar
and philosopher combined."
/4
r\
pi
y¥f:
f
■
A/~i ■
- £^7*4->'
f